US-Iran ceasefire: Iran’s biggest battle begins now: What’s ahead in the 60-day ceasefire window
After months of war, crippling sanctions, a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and repeated escalating threats, the United States and Iran digitally signed a memorandum of understanding (memorandum of understanding) has put a pause on one of the Middle East’s worst conflicts in recent years.The deal opens a 60-day window for talks on Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief and regional security, while temporarily easing tensions that have roiled global energy markets.Yet the ceasefire raises more questions than it answers. While Washington and Tehran hailed the deal as a breakthrough, differences remain over lifting sanctions, freezing Iranian assets, nuclear inspections and Lebanon’s future.Uncertainty emerged almost immediately, with Israeli actions in Lebanon sparking new tensions and public disagreements between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.“We have laid a very good foundation for a successful final transaction. The final transaction is a house. We haven’t built the house yet, but we have laid the foundation for a successful one,” U.S. Vice President Vance said after the talks in Switzerland.
.
As the dust settles, a bigger question takes hold: Who is actually becoming more powerful? Has Washington achieved its core objectives, or has Tehran turned its battlefield losses into negotiating leverage? With key issues unresolved, will the next 60 days determine whether the war is truly over – or simply entering a new phase?
From “unconditional surrender” to negotiation
When the United States entered the conflict in late February, President Trump set ambitious goals: to cripple Iran’s missile program, prevent it from rebuilding its nuclear capabilities, and create conditions that could weaken or alter the Islamic Republic’s leadership.“There will be no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender!” Trump declared early in the conflict.He even encouraged the Iranians to “take over” the government, fueling speculation that regime change was an unofficial war goal. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports a strategy to fundamentally weaken Tehran and reshape the regional balance.
.
Months later, the U.S.-Iran peace deal reflected much narrower goals. The memorandum of understanding contained no provisions on regime change, and Iran did not commit to dismantling its ballistic missile program or immediately handing over its stockpile of enriched uranium.Instead, the two sides agreed to further negotiations within 60 days on Iran’s nuclear activities, sanctions relief and regional security issues. Trump has softened several previous positions, signaling an openness to limited civilian nuclear activity and downplaying calls for regime change.
What did the United States gain?
Despite criticism that Washington has failed to achieve its original goals, the Trump administration can point to tangible results.Most immediately, the deal opens the way for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, ending a crisis that has disrupted a vital energy corridor and pushed up oil prices. The dedicated communications channel in the Strait of Hormuz is designed to prevent future incidents and ensure the safe passage of commercial vessels.The deal brings Iran back to the negotiating table after months of direct confrontation. For the first time since the conflict began, both sides formally committed to a 60-day diplomatic process focused on nuclear issues, sanctions and regional security. U.S. officials see this as an opportunity to seek to limit Iran’s nuclear activities through negotiation rather than force.
.
Another potential win is Iran’s reported willingness to discuss renewed international oversight of its nuclear program. Vance called Iran’s so-called deal to allow the return of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors a “major milestone” and “the first step toward the permanent denuclearization of Iran.” Tehran denies such concessions were eventually made, but inspections are now at the heart of ongoing negotiations.The agreement also temporarily eased regional tensions. The ceasefire framework aims to halt direct U.S. hostilities with Iran, ease tensions in Lebanon through a proposed “deconfliction team” and establish mechanisms to manage the dispute before it escalates.Crucially for the White House, the deal eases pressure on global energy markets. The reopening of the Hormuz oil fields, coupled with temporary exemptions for Iranian oil exports, could stabilize supplies and reduce the risk of another energy shock – with political value ahead of the U.S. midterm elections.These gains remain temporary. Hormuz has not yet fully returned to normal, nuclear negotiations have just begun and many aspects of the agreement are controversial. Washington’s success will depend on its ability to translate the memorandum of understanding into a broader, lasting final agreement.
What did Iran gain?
Tehran can plausibly argue that it has achieved many of its core goals without acknowledging the most contentious issues.One immediate benefit is that the United States granted a 60-day exemption for Iranian oil exports, allowing Tehran to resume crude oil and petrochemical sales. Iranian officials also claimed that $300 billion worth of frozen assets could be released as part of a broader process.If a final settlement is reached, the deal would open the door to broader sanctions relief. Even the prospect of easing is a major diplomatic victory for a country suffering from economic stress, export curbs and funding freezes.
Politically, the agreement marks Washington’s abandonment of several demands. Trump’s earlier calls for “unconditional surrender” and regime change were absent from the MoU. Iran’s leadership remains intact, its missile program is unaffected, and the nuclear issue is delayed rather than resolved.Iranian negotiators highlighted the terms related to Lebanon, arguing that the deal’s emphasis on ending hostilities and respecting Lebanese sovereignty would protect Tehran’s regional interests. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said economic concessions and exemptions met many of Iran’s conditions.That helps explain why some analysts say Iran absorbs the military costs but gains enough leverage to assert core strategic interests at the negotiating table. The next 60 days will show whether this advantage leads to a lasting solution or a temporary pause.
Netanyahu’s dilemma
The U.S.-Iran deal reduces the immediate risk of a wider war but creates political and strategic problems for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.The memorandum of understanding not only eases tensions between the United States and Iran, but also establishes a mechanism aimed at ending hostilities in Lebanon and puts Israel’s actions against Hezbollah under close scrutiny. This goes against the core purpose of Israel’s war: to weaken Hezbollah’s capabilities and drive the group from its northern border.
Israeli forces advanced into Lebanese territory and seized strategic locations they had sworn to hold. The new deal’s “deconfliction team” is designed to support a ceasefire in Lebanon, and Iranian negotiators directly linked developments in Lebanon to broader U.S.-Iran diplomacy.The timing is difficult for Netanyahu. With elections expected later this year, the war against Hezbollah remains popular in Israeli politics. Opinion polls show strong support for continuing military action even at the risk of friction with Washington.But tensions with the United States are palpable. Trump has criticized Israeli attacks on Lebanon as threatening to derail negotiations, and senior U.S. officials have dismissed Israeli concerns. Netanyahu must balance domestic pressure to continue fighting with reliance on U.S. military, financial and diplomatic support.A big unanswered question is whether Israel will fully adhere to the diplomatic road map currently being pursued by its closest allies.
nuclear test
The core dispute that sparked the conflict – Iran’s nuclear program – remains unresolved.Negotiations must now confront the future of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, permitted enrichment levels, and the scope of international inspection and verification mechanisms.A major sticking point is that Iran’s stockpile is estimated to be as enriched as 60%, just below weapons-grade levels. The United States has pushed for tight limits and controls on the stockpile; Iran has refused to hand over the material but said on-site dilution or dilution could be discussed.
.
Disagreement also centered on inspections. Vance’s claim that Iran had agreed to the return of IAEA inspectors was denied by Tehran, underscoring the already disputed interpretations.
seven unanswered questions
- Is the transaction fully effective? The MoU was signed digitally and the ceasefire was extended, but several provisions are subject to implementation timelines and a formal signing ceremony.
- Will the Strait of Hormuz really reopen without restrictions? The U.S. said shipping would be restored to freedom; Iranian officials suggested they would retain supervisory or administrative responsibilities.
- What economic benefits will Iran actually gain? Tehran said it would release frozen assets and ease sanctions; Washington said broader relief would depend on compliance.
- Do both parties agree on the agreement reached? Controversies already exist over frozen assets, lifting sanctions and inspecting personnel, raising questions of interpretation.
- Will Israel comply with Lebanese rules? The deal ties de-escalation to a ceasefire in Lebanon, but Israeli leaders have expressed reluctance to give up freedom of military action against Hezbollah.
- Can Washington and Tehran reach a final nuclear deal? Key issues such as enrichment limits, stockpile fate, inspections and sanctions relief remain highly controversial.
- If negotiations break down, will the war resume? U.S. officials warn that military options remain; Iran retains influence, making the ceasefire’s durability uncertain.
The next 60 days: Where the deal could fall apart
The toughest questions have yet to be resolved and will dominate the next 60 days.Nuclear negotiations are central: enrichment limits, the fate of highly enriched uranium and a strong inspection regime could determine whether the deal survives.Economic issues can be equally thorny. Iran seeks broader sanctions relief and access to frozen assets; U.S. officials say concessions will depend on compliance. Disputes have emerged over how the frozen funds will be used and which sanctions will be lifted.Lebanon is another test. The mechanisms of the MoU are intended to end hostilities, but actions by Israel or retaliation by Hezbollah could quickly derail this fragile process.Disputes over the implementation of inspections, sanctions relief and asset freezes could reignite the trust deficit in the U.S.-Iran relationship.A senior U.S. official told Axios that the coming weeks will reveal whether the understanding so far evolves into a lasting agreement or becomes merely a temporary pause. For now, the war may have stopped, but the real negotiations have just begun.
