Click here to track live developments on Iran war
A contested ceasefire
At the heart of the current confusion lies a fundamental disagreement over whether Lebanon was ever part of the ceasefire framework. According to CNN, Iran has accused Israel of violating the agreement by launching large-scale strikes on Lebanon that have killed hundreds, framing those actions as a direct breach of the truce. Israel and the US, however, maintain that Lebanon was never included in the deal, highlighting a critical disconnect between the parties.
This divergence has been reinforced by conflicting public statements. White House press secretary Karolina Leavitt said in a press briefing that the version of Iran’s 10-point proposal accepted by the US did not include Lebanon, noting that multiple drafts had been circulating. Yet, as reported by CNN, Pakistan’s prime minister referenced Lebanon in a public post on X announcing the ceasefire. Also, Pakistan’s ambassador to the US has stated in an interview to CNN that Lebanon was indeed part of the framework. These contradictions suggest that either multiple interpretations were tacitly tolerated to secure agreement or that the deal itself lacks clarity.
Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the confusion while warning against escalation. Before arriving in Pakistan for talks, he said it would be “dumb” for Iran to jeopardise negotiations over Israeli operations in Lebanon. His remarks reflect a broader US position that seeks to separate the ceasefire from Israel’s parallel military actions, a stance Iran clearly rejects.
Also Read: White House ‘demands’ Iran reopen Strait of Hormuz immediately, says Lebanon not part of the deal
Military realities undermining diplomatic intent
Even as the ceasefire took effect, Israel carried out what has been described as its largest strikes on Lebanon in recent months. Continued military operations in the region risk eroding already limited trust between negotiating parties. For Iran, these strikes reinforce the perception that the ceasefire is being selectively applied, if not outright ignored.
Iranian officials have responded with skepticism about the value of ongoing talks. Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf described negotiations as “unreasonable” in light of alleged violations. This comment shows internal pressure within Iran’s leadership, where public opinion appears wary of entering talks without guarantees of compliance.
At the same time, the US has shown readiness to escalate if diplomacy fails. President Donald Trump said US military assets would remain deployed around Iran until a full agreement is reached. He said in a post on Truth Social late Wednesday that all US ships, aircraft, weapons and military personnel will remain “in place, in and around, Iran” until a full agreement is reached. “If for any reason it is not, which is highly unlikely, then the “Shootin’ Starts,” bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before,” Trump wrote. Iran must have “NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS and, the Strait of Hormuz WILL BE OPEN & SAFE,” Trump added.
Trump’s posture underlines the coercive backdrop against which diplomacy is unfolding.
Also Read: Trump warns of ‘bigger’ & ‘better’ shooting if peace agreement violated
Iran dumps Hormuz clause of ceasefire deal
If the Lebanon question exposes ambiguity in the ceasefire’s scope, the Strait of Hormuz highlights uncertainty over its economic and strategic provisions. The waterway, critical to global energy flows, was widely seen as central to the ceasefire agreement. Yet its operational status remains unclear as Iran seems to have closed it in response to Israel violation of ceasefire with Lebanon attacks and to use it as a negotiating tool.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Iran has told mediators it intends to limit shipping through the strait to around a dozen vessels per day and impose tolls, indicating an effort to maintain leverage even under a ceasefire. This suggests that Iran views control over the strait not as a concession but as a negotiating tool.
Also Read: How Donald Trump walked into the Tehran trap
CNN, citing statements from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reported that shipping initially slowed and then halted entirely following Israeli strikes on Lebanon. Vessel-tracking data indicated no ships transiting the strait at one point, despite earlier signs of resumption.
Energy analysts remain cautious about the implications. Tom Kloza, a chief energy adviser at a major US oil company, told CNN that current movements were “baby steps” and noted the absence of clear evidence of increased crude shipments. Kloza said there’s no indication that the strait is going to reopen, and it seems like a flimsy ceasefire, to say what’s obvious. He said there is just “a trickle” leaving the region and that, because of the fragility of the deal, the people who send oil through the Strait of Hormuz “would be very reluctant to do so” right now. “It looks as though we’re weeks away from any restoration of even 50% or 70% of the Strait of Hormuz traffic that we depend on,” Kloza said.
Diplomacy under strain in Islamabad
Despite these tensions, diplomatic efforts are moving forward. Iran’s delegation is expected to arrive in Islamabad for talks with US officials. The meeting, facilitated by Pakistan, is intended to build on Iran’s proposed 10-point framework and extend the ceasefire into a more durable arrangement.
However, the atmosphere surrounding the talks is fraught. Iranian officials have expressed skepticism about negotiating amid ongoing Israeli military actions, while US officials are pushing to keep the process alive despite disagreements. AP reports that mediators are struggling to reconcile differing interpretations of the ceasefire, particularly regarding regional scope and enforcement mechanisms.
The choice of Islamabad as the venue reflects an attempt to create neutral ground, but it does not resolve the underlying issues. With both sides entering talks under pressure and with divergent expectations, the risk of breakdown remains high, especially when Pakistan’s role in the Lebanon clause in the ceasefire agreement has come under suspicion.
The latest developments paint a picture of a ceasefire that is more procedural than substantive. There’s absence of a shared understanding of what was agreed. Whether it is the status of Lebanon, the operation of the Strait of Hormuz or the limits of military activity, key elements remain contested. This ambiguity may have been a deliberate feature, allowing both sides to claim initial success. But it now threatens to undermine the very purpose of the ceasefire. Without clarity, enforcement becomes impossible and violations become a matter of interpretation rather than fact. As talks begin in Islamabad, the central challenge will be to convert a loosely defined pause into a coherent framework.
