U.S., Iran consider phased ceasefire plan

The United States and Iran are considering a two-step framework that would open with a 45-day ceasefire and move into negotiations on a permanent end to the war, Axios reported April 5 local time. Reuters reported April 6 that both sides have received a mediation proposal from Pakistan laying out a phased approach, with a truce followed by talks on a final settlement.

Even so, key differences remain unresolved. Analysts say a deal will be difficult given sharp disagreements over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping lane Iran has blockaded since the conflict began, and over how to manage its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Iran is believed to want a ceasefire first, with sensitive issues deferred to a second phase, along with firm measures to prevent a renewed conflict. The United States is said to be wary of that sequencing.

Amid the uncertainty, U.S. President Donald Trump said April 5 on Truth Social that the deadline for suspending attacks on Iranian civilian infrastructure, including power plants, would be 8 p.m. April 7, Eastern Time, or 9 a.m. April 8 in South Korea. The announcement pushes the timeline back by one day. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal the same day, Trump warned that if Iran takes no action by April 7, “There will be no power plants left, and no bridges standing,” underscoring the deadline for talks. In a separate interview with The Hill, he did not rule out deploying U.S. ground forces, suggesting the option remains available if negotiations collapse.

Trump’s repeated extensions have fueled criticism that Washington lacks clearly defined war aims and is using the deadlines primarily to pressure Tehran. The difficulty of negotiating with Iran, which holds leverage through moves such as blocking the Strait of Hormuz, is also cited as a reason for the shifting timeline.

Others see the latest extension differently, as an attempt to keep negotiations alive. Expanding strikes from military targets to civilian infrastructure such as power plants could carry serious consequences. Such action would likely draw international criticism over civilian harm and potential violations of international law. It could also prompt large-scale retaliation by Iran against civilian infrastructure in Gulf states, increasing the risk of damage to key U.S. allies and prolonging the conflict.


Jin-Woo Shin niceshin@donga.com