On Sunday evening, the mediating country Pakistan announced that the US and Iran had agreed to a memorandum of understanding. The full contents of the agreement have not yet been officially announced, but the parties describe it as an end to the war.
Anders Persson, associate professor of political science at Linnaeus University, sees the agreement as a way for both sides to proclaim themselves victors: the US for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Iran for having withstood attacks without the regime falling.
He now sees three pitfalls in the talks going forward.
A big question is whether this is the beginning of something lasting or just a pause in the fighting? Trump says the agreement is complete, but it is not. The most difficult question, about Iran's nuclear technology, is just postponed to the future, says Anders Persson.
Israeli withdrawal?
The agreement also includes Israel's attacks on Lebanon. In recent months, Israel has repeatedly attacked the Iran-linked Shiite militia Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What we have received from the various sides is that the fighting will also end in Lebanon. But will that also mean an Israeli withdrawal from the territory it occupies there?
Israel has said it doesn't want that, and then you have patrols already there. And let's say the text doesn't require an Israeli withdrawal, Lebanon won't accept that.
Fighting despite ceasefires
Israel and Lebanon, and Iran and the United States, have previously signed ceasefire agreements. Despite this, attacks have been carried out, several in the past week alone.
The third minefield is how large a deviation this ceasefire will withstand. We have previously seen that fighting continues, albeit at a lower intensity. One question is what will happen if there is again some shooting here and there, says Anders Persson.
