Iran, US both claim victory, but did they actually concede ground? 

Iran and the United States have both claimed victory in their conflict as they both accepted a two-week ceasefire just before US President Donald Trump’s apocalyptic deadline to obliterate Iranian “civilisation” if Tehran did not agree to a deal.

At least 2,076 people have died in US-Israel strikes on Iran that began on February 28, and thousands of others have been killed across the region. The war has also disrupted global energy supplies, stranding oil tankers and causing prices to shoot up in what’s being called the biggest shock to the industry in history.

Trump, in a Tuesday post on Truth Social, said the US would suspend bombing Iran after receiving a 10-point ceasefire proposal that he said was “workable”. The US president added that “almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to”.

Iran also said it will allow ships to begin to move through the Strait of Hormuz, even as some in the country have angrily denounced their government’s bowing to pressure.

Both sides are expected to continue Pakistan-mediated talks in Islamabad from Friday.

But despite the formal bluster, both the US and Iran appear to have shifted from some of their earlier stated red lines to agree to Tuesday’s deal. Those sticking points could reemerge to complicate the upcoming talks, analysts say.

Here’s what we know about what they both wanted and what concessions have been made so far:

What are the terms of Tuesday’s agreement?

The US agreed to suspend bombing Iran for two weeks.

“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 Longterm PEACE with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East…a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated,” Trump posted.

The US president did not immediately confirm if US negotiators would be in Islamabad.

“For Trump, the big achievement is to have Iran agree to negotiate after his escalating threats,” Chris Featherstone, a political scientist at the University of York, told Al Jazeera.

“He is presenting this as a success, but he will need to achieve some form of concession from Iran to be able to present this as a success in the longer term,” he said.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran would also cease “defensive operations” if attacks on the country are halted, and that Iran’s armed forces would allow safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Many in Iran, however, have expressed anger and fault Tehran for responding to a ceasefire deal, as distrust for the US has soared in the country, say analysts.

“The pessimism in Iran is probably more than in any other place because we’ve been attacked two times in the middle of negotiations,” Foad Izadi, a professor at the University of Tehran, told Al Jazeera.

He was referring to the US’s bombing of Iran during last June’s 12-day war alongside Israel, and the US-Israeli strikes on February 28th. Both escalations came as negotiations were ongoing.

What were Iran and the US’s earlier demands?

The US’s 15-point plan

The US had earlier, on March 25, issued a 15-point plan of demands.

It was sent to Iran through Pakistan at a time when Tehran denied any talks were happening.

The official framework was not fully published, but Iran rejected the plan and called it “excessive”.

Some of its main elements, as reported by US media, are:

• A 30-day ceasefire would halt the war.
• The Strait of Hormuz would immediately be opened by Tehran for safe passage.
• Iran would decommission its nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, in compliance with US and Israeli goals to end Tehran’s nuclear capabilities.
• Iran would permanently commit to not pursuing or developing nuclear weapons and would totally stop any uranium enrichment, even for civilian purposes.
• All of Iran’s existing stockpiles would be handed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the agency would be allowed to monitor its nuclear infrastructure.
• Iran would stop the arming and funding of regional proxies like Hezbollah.
• The number of ballistic missiles owned by Iran would be strictly limited and would only be for self-defence.
• The US would, in return, lift all sanctions imposed on Iran, including the “snapback” United Nations mechanism that allows the reimposition of previously lifted sanctions on Iran.
• Washington would also provide support for electricity at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant.

Iran’s 10-point plan

Iran also proposed a 10-point plan in response to the US’s outline.

On Monday, as the war entered its 38th day, and after Trump issued threats to blow up Iran’s power and energy plants in violation of international law, the US president acknowledged that Tehran had delivered this 10-point plan to the White House via Pakistani mediators.

Trump said after its presentation that the plan was a “significant step”, but “not good enough”.

In his ceasefire announcement on Tuesday, however, Trump said that Iran’s proposal was “workable” as the basis for a final agreement.

Analysts point out the plan contains some controversial points that Washington – and Israel – will likely balk at in the course of the talks.

Iran’s key asks include:

• Fundamental commitment to non-aggression from the US.
• Controlled passage through the Strait of Hormuz in coordination with the Iranian armed forces, which would mean that Iran retains its leverage over the waterway.
• An acceptance of Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme.
• The lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions and resolutions against Iran.
• The end of all resolutions against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
• The end of all resolutions against Iran by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
• The withdrawal of US combat forces from all bases in the region.
• Full compensation for damages suffered by Iran during the war – to be secured through payments to Iran by ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
• The release of all Iranian assets and properties frozen abroad.
• The ratification of all these matters in a binding UNSC resolution.

What have the two sides conceded so far?

From Iran:

• Permanent ceasefire

Iranian authorities had earlier vowed not to negotiate with the US at all, and to only end the war when Tehran was ready and assured that the US and Israel were successfully deterred from hitting the country again.

However, Iranian authorities later on yielded to pressure from Pakistani mediators — and reportedly, to pressure from China — to negotiate.

They also accepted a two-week ceasefire as opposed to an immediate and permanent cessation.

•  Reparations 

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian had earlier, on March 11, called for the payment of reparations for the damages caused by Israel and US strikes as a basis for a ceasefire. Now, Iran’s proposal instead suggests that it is willing to use fees from ships traversing the Strait of Hormuz for reconstruction.

• Attacks on Lebanon

Iran has for several days been insisting that any ceasefire should extend to the cessation of attacks on its regional allies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, while outlining the ceasefire he helped mediate, said it would cover Lebanon, too.

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an address that the US-Iran agreement does not include Lebanon. Hours later, Israel launched its biggest bombing campaign of the war on Lebanon, hitting the capital, Beirut, and leaving hundreds of people dead and wounded, according to Lebanese authorities.

It is unclear whether there was consensus among the US, Iran and mediators like Pakistan on Lebanon’s place in the ceasefire agreement — and whether Israel is violating it regardless.

“That’s the specific issue that Iran will find that Israel still has veto power over,” Samir Puri of King’s College London told Al Jazeera.

But, on the other hand, “Tehran will be unlikely to let it go, as they will wish to show that they can still influence Middle Eastern power politics despite the US strikes,” Featherstone said.

So far, at least 1,530 people have been killed in Lebanon during the war.

From the US 

• Strait of Hormuz  – Trump demanded that Iran allow free and safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, including in an expletive-laden social media post this week, where he threatened to otherwise bomb Iran’s civilian infrastructure. He also earlier demanded Iran’s “unconditional” surrender. However, Iran will maintain control of the strait under the ceasefire agreement it has made public — and that Trump, too, shared. Iran is also expected to continue to seek fees from ships that pass through the strait, and to use that revenue for reconstruction.
• Iran’s missile capabilities – Through the war, the US has insisted that it would keep fighting to degrade Iran’s ballistic missiles programme, and that the programme must be severely limited or dismantled in exchange for peace. But in his repeated statements leading up to — and since — the ceasefire, Trump has not said anything about Iran’s missiles.

What next?

As both sides are expected to begin what will likely be tough negotiations on Friday, analysts are speculating over what final concessions either side might be prepared to make and what issues will be non-starters.

At least one of Iran’s demands has been flagged as a no-go area for Washington: ending the US military presence in the Middle East.

The US has maintained a military presence in the region for more than 65 years. As many as 50,000 US troops are stationed across 19 sites in several countries, not including the thousands more troops called up amid the Iran war.

Iran has argued that those bases proved to be a liability for Gulf countries during the war, some analysts say, as they became targets of Tehran’s ire, as it lashed out in heavy retaliatory strikes.

Still, “these countries are all sovereign countries, they make their own decisions”, Izadi of the University of Tehran said.

“The experience our southern neighbours had with US bases was not good,” he noted. “But that particular concept [of the US leaving] is something that the independent governments in the Persian Gulf have to make for their own selves.”