By Ephrem Murindabigwi
Factors now being cited by analysts to explain the ceasefire between the United States and Iran closely mirror what has already been suggested in our recent analysis—namely that domestic political pressure, waning confidence in military leverage, and the growing economic costs of a protracted conflict would inevitably push both sides toward de-escalation.
In a report by China Global Television Network [CGTN], experts argue that the ceasefire is less a product of battlefield outcomes than of internal constraints and strategic recalibration in both Washington and Tehran. This convergence of views reinforces the earlier assessment that the agreement was not merely a sudden diplomatic breakthrough, but rather the result of mounting pressures that had already begun to limit the viability of continued confrontation.
Domestic pressures and strategic recalibration may have driven ceasefire decision
In its piece headlined “Experts on US-Iran ceasefire: Turning point or temporary buffer?”, China Global Television Network (CGTN) has quoted Wang Jin, as saying that ending the war constitutes the real objective for both Iran and the US. He says that negotiations are merely a pretext. Jin serves as the director of the Center for Strategic Studies at Northwest University in China.
“Speaking of the background and opportunity of this ceasefire, Wang said for Iran, the negotiations are being led by its government, spearheaded by the Iranian president and foreign minister,” CGTN has reported. In his words, he has stated “Within Iran’s domestic political factions, both figures belong largely to the pragmatic camp, which has long favored seeking peaceful dialogue and engagement with the United States.”
He further said that on the other hand, the United States has come to realize the protracted nature of the conflict and that it cannot change the current situation. Jin has emphasized that public dissatisfaction at home has been climbing, and that continuing the war has also brought criticism from US allies, adding that sustained military investment in the conflict has caused Washington to pursue talks.
Sun Taiyi is an associate professor of political science at Christopher Newport University in the United States. This professor echoes to CGTN that the most immediate trigger of this ceasefire is political rather than purely military, and more fundamental driver lies in domestic political constraints.
Trump had significantly escalated his rhetoric in the final days, including references to potentially “destroying an entire civilization.” Once such maximalist threats are issued, failing to follow through creates a credibility gap that must be managed, Sun said.
“The ceasefire, therefore, functions as a strategic off-ramp – a way to recalibrate without openly admitting failure, adding that meanwhile, there was indeed some degree of international mediation in the background, with actors such as Pakistan and China facilitating indirect communication. Crucially, the timing coincides with the April 15 tax filing deadline in the United States – a moment when public attention shifts intensely toward personal finances and economic performance.
Under these conditions, prolonging a costly and uncertain conflict risks overshadowing the administration’s efforts to promote its tax policy achievements, he said,” according to CGTN. Sun specifically said “A two-week ceasefire conveniently covers this politically sensitive window, allowing the administration to pivot the narrative from war-related uncertainty to domestic economic messaging.”
CGTN has reported “CNN, citing Iranian official messaging – particularly from the Supreme National Security Council – reported a maximalist version in which Iran claimed sweeping gains: control over the Strait of Hormuz, continued uranium enrichment, sanctions relief, compensation and even a reduction of US regional presence. The Trump administration quickly rejected this framing and instead pointed to more moderate statements from Iran’s foreign minister.”
Competing “victory narratives” expose fragility of ceasefire
In reaction to this contradiction, Sun has pointed out “This divergence is telling.” He has underlined that both sides are not simply negotiating outcomes, that they are instead actively constructing “victory narratives” for domestic audiences. “In that sense, the ceasefire is as much about political communication as it is about conflict management.”
He notes that this asymmetry renders a permanent ceasefire unlikely in the near term. “Over the next two weeks, the risk of renewed escalation – particularly through Israeli action or a US attempt to reassert leverage – remains high.” He adds that this amounts to a temporary stabilization at best, but that the conflict remains unresolved structurally.
Trump said the decision is “subject to” Iran agreeing to the complete, immediate and safe opening of the Strait of Hormuz, according to CGTN. “Speaking of whether Iran will fully open the strait in the future, Wang said the freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz will never return to the pre-conflict status quo, adding that Iran is certain to retain dominance over the strait and that the US side may issue criticism or file complaints but will be unable to alter the reality.
Discussions over navigation in the strait are unlikely to become the central focus of US–Iran negotiations, Wang said, adding that the two sides will not reach any binding agreement on this issue in their core negotiations. Sun said what we are likely to see is not a fully open strait, but a conditionally open and highly managed one. Despite the formal language of ‘full reopening,’ the post-ceasefire reality already suggests a different dynamic: vessels are expected to coordinate with Iranian forces, implying some form of tacit permission structure.”