Trump declares two-week ceasefire with Iran and claims Strait of Hormuz will re-open as Tehran submits 10-point peace plan to end the war

The announcement by Donald Trump of a two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran marked a sudden shift in a conflict that had rapidly escalated into one of the most volatile geopolitical crises in recent years.

According to the statement, Iran agreed not only to halt hostilities but also to reopen the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, following the submission of a ten-point peace plan aimed at ending the war. The development, framed as a breakthrough in negotiations, came after days of mounting tensions and stark warnings of catastrophic consequences if diplomacy failed.

Iranian pro-government demonstrators chant slogans in a gathering after announcement of a two-week ceasefire in the war with the United States and Israel, at the Enqelab-e-Eslami, or Islamic Revolution, Square, in Tehran, Iran

Trump disclosed the agreement through a post on Truth Social, stating: “I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks,” a declaration that followed earlier rhetoric in which he warned that Iran’s “entire civilization” could be wiped out if it did not comply with demands to reopen the Strait. The tone of the announcement suggested a recalibration from confrontation to conditional de-escalation, though it remained clear that the ceasefire was temporary and contingent on further negotiations.

The President described the arrangement as a “double-sided ceasefire,” emphasizing that both sides would halt military operations during the agreed period. He justified the decision by asserting that the United States had already achieved its primary military objectives and was now positioned to pursue a longer-term agreement. “The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all military objectives, and are very far along with a definitive agreement concerning long-term peace with Iran,” Trump wrote.

In subsequent remarks, Trump characterized the moment as “a big day for world peace,” signaling optimism that the pause in hostilities could pave the way for a more durable resolution. He further stated that Iran had “had enough” of the conflict and predicted that the coming period would see “lots of positive action,” suggesting that diplomatic channels were now taking precedence over military engagement.

The ceasefire was not limited to bilateral arrangements between Washington and Tehran. Israel also agreed to suspend its attacks on Iran for the same two-week period, according to a senior White House official. The truce was structured to take effect once Iran ensured the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical maritime corridor through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes.

The agreement emerged through a complex web of diplomatic efforts involving multiple international actors. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif played a key mediating role, facilitating communication between the United States and Iran. Trump indicated that discussions with Sharif had provided assurances that Tehran would agree to “the complete, immediate, and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz,” a condition central to the ceasefire.

In addition to Pakistan’s involvement, Chinese intervention reportedly influenced Iran’s decision to accept the deal. According to Iranian officials, Beijing urged Tehran to demonstrate flexibility in light of the economic repercussions of the ongoing conflict. This pressure, combined with the escalating costs of war, appears to have contributed to Iran’s willingness to engage in a temporary truce.

Iran’s position was formalized through a ten-point peace plan published by state media. The proposal outlined a series of demands, including a commitment to non-aggression, recognition of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of its uranium enrichment program, and the lifting of both primary and secondary sanctions. The plan also called for the termination of United Nations Security Council resolutions targeting Iran, financial compensation, and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region.

The Iranian government made clear that its cooperation was conditional. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated: “If attacks against Iran are halted, our Powerful Armed Forces will cease their defensive operations.” He further confirmed that, during the two-week ceasefire, “safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via the coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces.” These remarks underscored the transactional nature of the agreement, in which each side’s commitments were tied to reciprocal actions.

Despite earlier dismissing the Iranian proposal as insufficient, Trump later described the ten-point plan as “a workable basis on which to negotiate.” This shift indicated a pragmatic approach to diplomacy, reflecting the urgency of stabilizing a situation that had begun to disrupt global markets and threaten broader regional security.

The conflict itself, launched on February 28 under the designation Operation Epic Fury, had quickly intensified. U.S. objectives included preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, curbing its missile and drone capabilities, and limiting its influence through regional proxies. Iran, in turn, sought to maintain its strategic autonomy and resist external pressure on its nuclear program and territorial control.

Economic pressures played a significant role in shaping the trajectory of the crisis. Oil prices surged as the Strait of Hormuz became increasingly dangerous for commercial shipping, with Iran reportedly targeting vessels that attempted to pass through. The instability drove global markets into volatility, with crude oil prices spiking before sharply declining following the ceasefire announcement. U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate contracts fell by more than 15 percent, reflecting renewed confidence in the security of energy supplies.

Domestic impacts were also evident, as fuel prices rose significantly, placing additional strain on consumers. The average price for a gallon of regular gasoline climbed from $2.98 to $4.14, a 39 percent increase, highlighting the direct economic consequences of geopolitical instability.

The negotiations leading to the ceasefire were conducted by a team that included Vice President JD Vance, senior adviser Jared Kushner, and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. Their efforts were aimed at securing concessions from Iran while maintaining pressure through military readiness. The involvement of multiple high-level figures underscored the importance the administration placed on resolving the conflict.

At the same time, the White House indicated that discussions were ongoing regarding potential face-to-face meetings between U.S. and Iranian officials.

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt noted that while such talks were being considered, “nothing is final until it is announced by the President or the White House,” suggesting that the diplomatic process remained fluid.

The path to the ceasefire was marked by moments of acute tension. Trump had issued a stark warning that “a whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again” if no agreement was reached by a specified deadline. The rhetoric contributed to widespread concern about the possibility of a large-scale escalation, including the use of devastating military force.

Even as the ceasefire was announced, signs of instability persisted. Reports indicated that missile alerts were triggered in Tel Aviv shortly after the agreement was made public, highlighting the fragility of the situation and the risk that hostilities could resume if the terms were not upheld.

The agreement also drew criticism from political figures within Israel. Opposition leader Yair Lapid condemned the outcome, arguing that it represented a failure of leadership. “There has never been a political disaster like this in our entire history. Israel was not even close to the table when decisions were made concerning the core of our national security,” Lapid stated. He further criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for failing to achieve the objectives of the war, asserting that while the military had performed effectively, the political strategy had fallen short.

International reactions reflected a cautious optimism. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer welcomed the ceasefire, describing it as a moment of relief for both the region and the global community. He emphasized the need for continued cooperation to transform the temporary truce into a lasting agreement and to ensure the sustained reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Starmer’s comments were accompanied by plans for diplomatic engagement in the Middle East, including meetings with regional leaders and military personnel. These efforts were aimed at supporting stability and reinforcing the principles of freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most critical maritime corridors.

The broader strategic significance of the Strait of Hormuz remained central to the conflict. As a chokepoint for global energy supplies, its closure or disruption has far-reaching implications for international markets and economic stability. Iran’s control over the Strait has long been a point of contention, and the ceasefire agreement did not resolve the underlying tensions surrounding its status.

The United States had consistently demanded that Iran relinquish certain capabilities, including its nuclear enrichment program and its development of advanced weaponry. Iran, however, maintained that these elements were integral to its sovereignty and security, creating a fundamental divide that negotiations would need to address.

The ceasefire, therefore, represented not a resolution but a pause—a window in which diplomacy could attempt to bridge deeply entrenched differences. Both sides appeared to recognize the costs of continued conflict, yet neither showed signs of fully abandoning their core positions.

Events leading up to the agreement underscored the urgency of reaching a settlement. Airstrikes had targeted critical infrastructure, including bridges, transportation hubs, and energy facilities. U.S. forces conducted repeated strikes on Kharg Island, a key center for Iranian oil production, while regional capitals experienced heightened security alerts in response to potential missile threats.

The involvement of multiple regional and global actors highlighted the interconnected nature of the crisis. Pakistan’s mediation efforts, China’s diplomatic influence, and the engagement of Western allies all contributed to shaping the outcome, reflecting a broader recognition that the conflict’s implications extended far beyond the immediate parties involved.

As the two-week ceasefire began, attention turned to the prospects for sustained peace. The planned negotiations, set to take place in Islamabad, were expected to address the core issues outlined in Iran’s proposal and U.S. demands. The outcome of these talks would determine whether the ceasefire could evolve into a more permanent arrangement or whether hostilities would resume.

The situation remained fluid, with both optimism and uncertainty coexisting. While the agreement provided a temporary reprieve, the underlying tensions that had driven the conflict were still present, requiring careful and sustained diplomatic engagement.

In this context, the ceasefire can be understood as a strategic pause rather than a definitive resolution. It offered an opportunity for dialogue and de-escalation, but also served as a reminder of the complexities involved in resolving conflicts rooted in competing interests and longstanding mistrust.

The coming weeks would be critical in determining whether the momentum generated by the ceasefire could be translated into meaningful progress. For now, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the suspension of military operations provided a measure of stability, even as the broader challenges of achieving lasting peace remained unresolved.