Within the span of a single day, Donald Trump shifted from warning that Iran’s civilisation "will die tonight" to describing Tehran’s ten-point proposal as a "workable" framework for negotiations set to take place in Pakistan.

For civilians across the Middle East, the ceasefire has provided a pause in violence after weeks of conflict triggered when the United States and Israel launched military action against Iran on 28 February.

That pause has not extended to Lebanon. After asserting that the truce excluded Lebanese territory, Israel carried out an intense and lethal series of air strikes there.

Elsewhere, the lull may prove temporary. Although both Washington and Tehran have incentives to bring the fighting to an end, their publicly stated positions remain far apart. Negotiators now face a two-week window to attempt to bridge deep mistrust between the sides.

U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance characterized the agreement as a "fragile truce", an assessment widely viewed as grounded in reality.

At the same time, both governments have issued sweeping claims of success.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon that the outcome represented a "capital V military victory" for the United States, describing it as "historic and overwhelming".

"The world's leading state sponsor of terrorism proved utterly incapable of defending itself, its people or its territory," he said.

Similarly forceful rhetoric has emerged from Tehran, where officials are also declaring a decisive triumph.

Iran’s First Vice President Mohammed Reza Aref wrote on social media that "the world has welcomed a new centre of power, and the era of Iran has begun".

Supporters of Trump argue that the extensive damage inflicted by U.S. and Israeli operations compelled Iran to enter negotiations, portraying the president’s rhetoric as calculated pressure. Critics note that some of his threats echoed language that could be interpreted as war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Iranian leaders, meanwhile, contend that their ability to withstand U.S. and Israeli force — including continued launches of ballistic missiles and drones and control over the Strait of Hormuz — forced Washington to engage based on their proposed terms.

Those terms include demands likely to face strong resistance from the United States, just as American positions remain difficult for Tehran to accept.

Among Iran’s key demands are recognition of its military control over the Strait of Hormuz, financial reparations, the removal of sanctions and access to frozen assets.

As delegations prepare to meet in Islamabad, it remains uncertain whether Pakistani mediators can secure a lasting agreement. What is clear is that the conflict is already reshaping regional dynamics.

When ordering strikes on Iran, both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested regime change was imminent. That outcome has not materialized, despite attempts to portray the killing of senior Iranian figures as a turning point.

Opponents of Iran’s leadership who had anticipated its collapse are now left uncertain as the war appears to be concluding without such a shift.

Instead, a government once described by Washington and Tel Aviv as on the brink of collapse is now positioned as a central negotiating partner. Tehran is expected to press to consolidate its standing, even as Trump only weeks ago called for unconditional surrender.

It is also unclear how the upcoming talks will differ from earlier discussions in Geneva, where negotiators had been making headway before hostilities resumed.

Those talks focused heavily on Iran’s nuclear program, including the future of its stockpile of enriched uranium capable of being used in a nuclear weapon.

The Strait of Hormuz is expected to feature prominently again in Islamabad. Tehran has turned control of the waterway into a strategic lever, demonstrating its ability to disrupt global trade if fighting resumes.

Before 28 February, international shipping moved freely through the strait.

Iran has since indicated that vessels may once again pass during the ceasefire, provided their movements are coordinated with its military. Officials may seek to formalize that arrangement and potentially introduce transit fees similar to those charged for passage through the Suez Canal.

Israel was not directly involved in the negotiations that produced the ceasefire. Netanyahu had advocated for further military action against Iran. In an election year, domestic critics — including opposition leader Yair Lapid — have accused him of undermining national security, warning that battlefield gains may not translate into long-term strategic advantage.

China played a role in the lead-up to the truce and is expected to exert influence over the Islamabad discussions, potentially expanding its regional footprint.

Trump’s rhetoric has also strained relations with traditional allies, particularly within NATO. British officials, in particular, have reacted to his criticism of Keir Starmer and disparaging remarks about the Royal Navy.

While Gulf Arab states are unlikely to sever ties with Washington, they are expected to reassess their security arrangements.

More broadly, the language used by the U.S. president — including threats that could be interpreted as targeting an entire civilisation — has prompted widespread concern internationally, raising difficult questions about the role of law and morality in U.S. policy.