When Donald Trump said that he would probably not be attending his son’s wedding, citing “a thing called Iran and other things”, and when his vice-president suddenly changed his weekend plans to return to Washington, it was not hard to imagine the worst. That worst, from a great many perspectives, was that the US president had decided to end the ceasefire with Iran and act on his earlier threat to destroy its “whole civilisation”.
So it was an unexpectedly welcome turn of events when Mr Trump revealed on his Truth Social platform that, for the time being at least, almost the opposite was true. He said that an agreement had been “largely negotiated” with Iran, and added that he had spoken to the leaders of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries about a “Memorandum of Understanding pertaining to peace” – peace being spelt out in capital letters.
His statements kindled hope not only that the war might be nearing its end, but that the Strait of Hormuz might be reopened to normal traffic, allowing the battered global energy economy to start its recovery. Although the contents of the agreement were not divulged, unofficial reports suggested they could include a 60-day extension of the current ceasefire, an end to the US blockade of Iranian ports, the suspension of some US sanctions, and the start of new talks on nuclear issues.
As with practically everything associated with Donald Trump, of course, there must be grounds for extreme caution. Until the actual terms are spelt out, and Iran has agreed, it would be premature for anyone to breathe anything like a sigh of relief. The last time formal proposals were on the table, they were dismissed by Iran after, it appeared, barely a glance.
Early indications from Tehran this time around have been non-committal. And it is particularly hard to imagine Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz on the previous terms, without demanding a cut, in the form of tolls, to help pay for repairs to its infrastructure. As many have also warned, restoring the situation as it was before the war, even if the strait is completely reopened, will not happen overnight.
It could take many months, given the displacement of tanker fleets, insurance complexities, and the alternative arrangements already made by those affected, particularly China and South East Asia.
Even if what could be agreed is little more than an extension of the current ceasefire, with the two sides disengaging essentially to where they were before the US-Israel attacks of 28 February, however, that is in almost every way a great deal better than most alternatives. It also reflects quite a change from Washington, posing questions as to why Mr Trump might have retreated from his more apocalyptic threats, and how that retreat can be made permanent.
Ideally, it would simply mean that the US president has seen sense – the same sense that the UK and most European governments saw when they refused to be drawn into the hostilities. And the president’s appetite for a fight does seem to have been cooling. A week ago, Mr Trump said he had called off a planned attack on Iran at the request of Gulf States, even as he threatened a new “large-scale assault” in the absence of an agreement. Now, an agreement of sorts would seem to be within reach.
The role of others cannot be excluded either. Even if European influence has been negligible, the transparent misgivings of vice-president JD Vance may have had some effect, as perhaps also his recent discussions with Xi Jinping in China. The unpopularity of the war in the United States, as the mid-term Congressional elections draw ever nearer, could be another factor. With Mr Trump barred from seeing another term, the loss of one or both Houses of Congress could render him a lame duck for his last two years, and even expose him to impeachment proceedings that could be more successful than last time around.
By becoming party, with Israel, to attacks on Iran, Mr Trump will surely have forfeited his boast of being a peacemaker and with it any claim to the coveted Nobel Peace Prize. But seeing his power curtailed, as it would be by serious losses of seats in Congress, could prove at least as expensive in legacy terms.
Before knowing either the full details of any agreement or the response of Iran, it is too early to offer a definitive verdict on the real progress achieved. But what is clearly a hesitation in Washington about the use of more force against Iran cannot but be a positive development. Nor is it just Iran, but the Middle East as a whole, and much of the rest of the trading world, that has to hope Donald Trump’s description of terms “largely negotiated” is soon updated to read “fully agreed”.
