Did Trump hand Iran a lifeline it doesn't deserve?

And yet, when it came to it, rather than obliterate Iranian power plants and bridges – as he had loudly proclaimed he would do – US President Donald Trump settled instead for a two week ceasefire with the Iranian mullahs he once promised to eradicate.

On the surface of it, the terms of the deal brokered by Pakistan favour Trump. The Iranians have conceded the re-opening of the Strait of Hormuz that he declared would be required for any cessation of fighting to occur. Having previously said they would never do this without a permanent end to the conflict, the Iranian move marks a significant climbdown from Tehran.

And indeed it is obvious that the Iranian regime and its capabilities have been seriously degraded by the US and Israeli action. Its original leadership has been driven from power through death or injury, and its offensive capabilities significantly diminished, even if it remains capable of mounting some short and medium distance attacks on Israel and the Gulf. The economic situation of Iran – already perilous and exposed by the widescale protests of December 2025 and January 2026 – has also worsened, which will worry a regime that always has one eye on maintaining its grip on power.

But lest Mr Trump get too cocksure, the world remains entirely uncertain about what will happen next. If the parties now emerge with a deal which resembles anything like the “10 Point Plan” Iran has been bandying about – which would give Iran sanctions relief and control of the Strait, as well as nuclear enrichment capabilities (at least according to the Farsi version of the deal, which mysteriously was absent from the English) – then it will be Iran that ultimately emerges victorious from the pause. A regime that was on its knees a few weeks ago will have been granted a new lease of life, and one it will be certain to use to its advantage.

Given how badly Iran has behaved in the past few weeks – indiscriminately attacking civilians and infrastructure in neighbouring countries that were not party to the original hostilities, as well as holding the world to ransom through oil and commodity blockading, to give but two examples – for the Americans to have fought a war that did nothing more than pause the Ayatollah’s march towards nuclear weapons status could only be seen as an act of supreme folly. And in light of the fissures the conflict has created in transatlantic relations, with some US formal allies now inclined to believe that both the language and behaviour of the current President mean that they ought to look elsewhere for security commitments, a failure to secure at the very least a permanently diminished Iranian appetite will have many observers wondering what it was all for.

The devil will of course be in the detail of the next stage of discussions. All possibilities remain open for all sides, including a resumption of hostilities. But who blinks first still matters. And we will only know which side has really won or lost when we learn what terms, if any, these two historic protagonists have reached.

____________________

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director at the Henry Jackson Society.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position. To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk