Just after midnight on April 8, as the word of a ceasefire began to circulate across the Gulf, a tense stillness hung over the ports of Bahrain, Qatar, Abu Dhabi, and Oman. For days, hundreds of vessels had remained anchored or drifting, caught in the US-Israeli war against Iran. In retaliation, Tehran imposed a blockade that had effectively sealed off the Strait of Hormuz.

Then, cautiously, movement began. The Liberian-flagged Daytona Beach and the Greek NJ Earth edged out, as if testing whether the world had truly pulled back from the brink. Overnight, both crossed safely through the 100-km-long narrow corridor that carries nearly a fifth of the global oil.

Their passage signalled more than maritime relief. After weeks in which thousands of vessels and tens of thousands of seafarers were left stranded across Gulf waters, the first crossings suggested the possibility of reopening a lifeline to the global economy. Oil prices dipped, markets steadied, and for a brief moment, it seemed the crisis had begun to ease.

But the calm did not travel far. Hundreds of miles away in Beirut, the promise of peace collapsed almost as quickly as it had appeared. Fadi Zaydan, 35, who was sheltering with his elderly parents along the waterfront, set out for his hometown of Nabatieh after the ceasefire announcement. He never made it. Israeli bombardment resumed within hours of the ceasefire, injuring him and his parents. Across Lebanon, more than 250 people were killed and over a thousand wounded. Among the dead was Ghada Dayekh, a veteran radio voice of the Sawt Al Farah station, killed by an airstrike that tore through her apartment in Tyre.

Between the hesitant movement of ships in Gulf ports and the renewed devastation in Lebanon lies the uneasy truth of this ceasefire: a pause that steadied markets, but not lives.

In the early hours of April 8, Pakistan announced that the US and Iran have agreed to a two-week pause in fighting, an announcement that was quickly confirmed by US President Donald Trump, who described it as a “double-sided ceasefire” tied explicitly to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

The timing of the decision, however, is its real significance, because the agreement was reached less than two hours before a US-imposed deadline after which, it was perceived both publicly and privately, a sweeping bombing campaign against Iranian infrastructure was possible.

Trump’s threat of immediate civilisational destruction

Two days of rhetoric from Trump that steadily intensified in both tone and content, moving from threats of retaliation to civilisational destruction, culminated in his declaration on April 7 that “a whole civilization will die tonight.”

The statement captured not only the scale of what was being contemplated but also the degree to which the war had entered a phase where political messaging and military signalling were collapsing into one another. “At one point, in an expletive-laden outburst on social media, Trump threatened Iran with strikes on its economic infrastructure, its transport networks, and, by extension, the civilian systems that sustain the state itself

Inside Washington, these threats were not merely rhetorical. Officials familiar with the final 48 hours of decision-making describe a situation in which the Pentagon was actively preparing for a large-scale bombing campaign.

Across a wide geographical arc stretching from Armenia and Georgia through Türkiye and into the Gulf, governments began preparing for a scenario that had, until then, remained largely theoretical: the possibility of strikes on Iran’s hardened nuclear facilities or the US’ use of the dirty bomb. Disaster management authorities tracked wind patterns and atmospheric conditions, modelling the possible spread of radioactive material and identifying population centres that could be affected within hours of a strike.

In Doha, a diplomat involved in crisis coordination said that the entire character of the war will change if nuclear facilities are brought into the equation. In Ankara, officials were concerned that radiation does not recognise borders, and if its risk becomes real, every country in the region will become part of the battlefield.

These fears were the silent backdrop of the ceasefire; they help explain why a diplomatic opening that might otherwise have seemed narrow was seized upon with urgency by multiple actors who were until then largely operating on the margins.

Pakistan’s role in this context is pivotal, not because it imposed a settlement, but because it created the conditions for a settlement. Diplomatic sources said that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s last-minute appeal for a two-week pause, issued just hours before Trump’s deadline, provided both Washington and Tehran with a framework to step back without appearing to concede.

An Iranian diplomat described the moment as “a rare and significant one for Pakistani diplomacy”, suggesting that its role as a conduit for communication that shaped the ceasefire outcome exceeded its formal position in the regional hierarchy.

A fragile ceasefire

However, the process behind the ceasefire was far from orderly. Multiple sources in Ankara, Tehran, Doha, and Islamabad told Frontline that a decisive shift began when Iran’s Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei instructed his negotiators, for the first time, to move towards a deal.

The decision was taken under extreme security, with Khamenei reportedly communicating through handwritten notes passed by intermediaries to minimise exposure to potential assassination attempts.

The Iranian intervention triggered a rapid sequence of diplomatic exchanges in which Pakistani mediators carried revised proposals between Washington and Tehran, while Turkish and Egyptian officials simultaneously worked to narrow the gaps between the two sides.

The atmosphere in Washington during these exchanges is described as chaotic, with US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff reportedly reacting to Iran’s initial proposal as a “disaster” and “catastrophe”, prompting a series of revisions that extended late into the night.

According to the US media outlet Axios, Vice President J.D. Vance, operating from Hungary, engaged in continuous communication with intermediaries, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remained in contact with Trump.

At the Pentagon, preparations for escalation continued simultaneously, giving a sense that the system was operating without a clear centre of gravity.

It was within this environment of uncertainty that the ceasefire finally took shape, with a general understanding emerging by midday on April 7 that both sides were converging on a two-week pause. Pakistan publicly outlined the terms and called on both parties to accept them. Trump’s acceptance, despite pressure from hawkish allies urging him to reject the proposal, marked a turning point not only in the war but also in the perception of how it should conclude.

At the core of the ceasefire lies a 10-point proposal advanced by Iran, which will now be the basis of negotiations in Islamabad. The proposal includes provisions for continued Iranian oversight of the Strait of Hormuz, lifting primary and secondary sanctions, recognising Iran’s right to continue uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes, guaranteeing non-aggression, withdrawing US forces from the region, and compensations for war-related damages alongside releasing frozen Iranian assets.

Iran’s Supreme National Security Council described the ceasefire framework as a “historic victory” which compelled the US to acknowledge its core principles. It also emphasised that the ceasefire “does not mean the end of the war”, but represents a continuation of the conflict through political means instead. Experts say that although the US has made maximalist demands, its acceptance is a diplomatic victory for Iran.

Israel’s tactical successes, strategic setbacks

For Israel, the ceasefire has created a more complex and ambiguous situation. The war began with what many in Tel Aviv saw as a demonstration of overwhelming military superiority, with the initial strikes on February 28 achieving significant tactical success, including the elimination of key Iranian figures and the disruption of command structures.

Israeli pilots returning from those early missions described a sense of euphoria, reflecting the belief that the campaign would deliver a decisive outcome. Sources in Tel Aviv said that their confidence, however, gave way to a more sober assessment as Iran adapted its tactics, shifting to mobile missile launch systems and leveraging underground infrastructure to sustain its operations.

Israeli author and commentator David Horovitz argued that while the campaign achieved tactical successes, it failed to secure its primary strategic objectives, including the elimination of Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the destabilisation of its regime.

“Iran retains highly enriched uranium and continues to demonstrate the ability to launch missile attacks, even if its capabilities have been degraded, raising the possibility that the war may ultimately be seen as a tactical victory for Israel but a strategic setback,” he said.

There is unease within Israeli policy circles that the ceasefire may now lock in an outcome that does not align with Israel’s long-term objectives, and that the negotiation process itself, shaped largely outside Israeli control, may constrain its options going forward.

The potential for tension within the ceasefire framework is further heightened by Israel’s continued operations in Lebanon, which it has argued fall outside the scope of the agreement. There are enough indications that some Israeli officials are sceptical of the negotiation process, viewing it as unlikely to produce a settlement that addresses their security concerns.

For Iran, by contrast, the ceasefire represents an opportunity to translate military endurance into political leverage.

Omair Anas, professor at Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, described the outcome as “game-changing”. He argued that Iran has succeeded in reframing the conflict, isolating Israel from direct engagement with the US and positioning itself as a central negotiating actor.

“By sustaining its operations under heavy bombardment and leveraging its control over the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has been able to demonstrate resilience in a way that has strengthened its bargaining position, while also internationalising the crisis and drawing in regional stakeholders who have a direct interest in preventing further escalation,” he told Frontline.

Indian strategic expert Brahma Chellaney characterised the war as a strategic failure for the US, arguing that it has strengthened the Iranian regime, expanded its influence over critical energy routes, and exposed the limits of American power.

Türkiye’s National Intelligence Organization (Millî İstihbarat Teşkilatı, or MIT) also played a central role in maintaining communication channels between the parties. A source said MIT Director İbrahim Kalın coordinated with intelligence services from over a dozen countries and facilitated the exchange of messages that allowed negotiations to continue even as tensions escalated.

Turkish officials have described the MIT’s role as one of preventing misunderstandings and conveying strategic messages aimed at reducing tensions. It also helped manage broader security implications of the conflict, including potential spillover effects on Türkiye’s own borders.

Sources said that Türkiye set two clear priorities: to prevent a wider regional war and to shift the centre of gravity of the crisis towards the US. Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan made more than 150 phone calls over the past 10 days, engaging key regional and global actors in an intense round of diplomacy. In the past week alone, he spoke nearly 50 times with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar and the Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke with more than 20 world leaders to support Pakistani efforts of ceasefire.

On the night the ceasefire was declared, Ankara remained in continuous contact with Washington, Tehran, Islamabad, and Doha until 2 am (Turkish time), sources added, underscoring Türkiye’s central role in backchannel coordination to help Pakistani efforts. 

A recalibration

The cumulative effect of these dynamics is a ceasefire that reflects not a resolution of the conflict, but a recalibration of the positions of the actors involved.

Former Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao said the ceasefire “marks a pause, but more importantly reveals where each actor now stands”, highlighting the extent to which the US has stepped back from the brink of escalation.

In her assessment, what is unfolding is “not resolution of conflict, but repositioning”, a phase in which coercion and negotiation coexist, and in which the outcomes remain fluid.

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, therefore, should be understood not as a return to normalcy, but as a moment of recalibration within a larger process that remains uncertain and contested. The ships are moving again, and the immediate crisis has been defused, but the underlying tensions have not been resolved, and the possibility of renewed escalation remains embedded in the very structure of the ceasefire itself.

In that sense, the image of the first tanker passing through the Strait captures not only the relief of a world stepping back from the brink but also the fragility of the pause that made that passage possible, a pause that may yet prove to be only an interlude in a conflict that has merely changed its form.

Iftikhar Gilani is an Indian journalist based in Ankara.

Also Read | US-Israel war on Iran: So, who won?

Also Read | Trump indicts the American century