Who Blinked First? Inside the Cease-fire Negotiations

This non-profit, non-partisan summary draws on open-source assessments from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), a U.S. conflict analysis think tank, along with official statements and verified military trends. It provides factual reporting without bias.

In early April, Iran accepted a two-week ceasefire and agreed, with conditions, to reopen the Strait of Hormuz after rejecting a similar proposal the day before. ISW assesses Iran’s shift followed heavy losses that reduced its military and ability to sustain escalation. Actions in the strait were likely leverage rather than blockade, showing military posturing.

On April 2, U.S. forces struck the B1 bridge near Karaj, halting missile and drone movement. Footage released by Donald Trump went viral, with Trump saying, “The biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again.” ISW notes the strike and video projected U.S. resolve.

By April 5, Iran’s Supreme Leader 

Mojtaba Khamenei said, “We will continue threatening ships in the Strait of Hormuz unless the U.S. and Israel stop all attacks.” The U.S. extended the deadline to 8:00 PM ET on April 7. Trump warned, “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” ISW notes these statements reflect both sides’ dramatic rhetoric and military posturing.

On April 6, Pakistan offered a ceasefire. Iran rejected a short pause and submitted a 10-point list, including halting Israeli actions against Hezbollah, lifting U.S. sanctions, paying reparations, aiding reconstruction, removing U.S. troops, ending UN and IAEA resolutions, and establishing “safe passage,” potentially giving Iran control or fees. Trump called parts “not good enough,” while U.S. officials described the list as maximalist. ISW assessed it aimed to delay negotiations and test U.S. resolve.

Hours before the deadline, Iran accepted the ceasefire. Trump said the strait must be “fully, immediately, and safely reopened for all ships.” He thanked Pakistani Prime Minister 

Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi (April 7) confirmed acceptance if attacks stopped, noting safe passage would be managed by Iranian forces with attention to “technical limitations.” Sharif suggested Lebanon might be included, but the U.S. and Israel said operations against Hezbollah would continue. 

The U.S. maintained free shipping while keeping longer-term demands on nuclear and proxy activity. Both sides claimed partial success, but ISW highlights Iran reversed position under pressure, showing the ceasefire as a temporary operational pause, not a durable resolution.

By then, U.S. officials reported extensive degradation of Iran’s military. Dan Caine (April 8) said over 13,000 targets had been struck, including 1,500 air defense sites, 450 ballistic missile storage facilities, 800 drone depots, and over 90% of weapons factories, including all Shahed drone production. Roughly 80% of air defenses were destroyed, over 90% of naval assets disabled, and long-range missile attacks on Israel dropped about 90% (Pentagon briefing, April 8). Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called the operation a “historic and overwhelming victory.” ISW notes the strikes sharply reduced Iran’s force projection and reinforced U.S. posturing.

The situation remains fragile, with disputes over enforcement and regional operations. Talks may help ease tensions, but core issues, nuclear policy, proxy activity, and control of the Strait of Hormuz remain unresolved, with Saturday’s meeting in Islamabad the next step, according to ISW. Military posturing on both sides will continue to influence negotiations and compliance.