The first day of the ceasefire was full of variables: Trump reversed his position and refused to use Iran's

Uncertainty on the First Day of Ceasefire: Trump Flip-Flops, Refuses to Recognize Iran's "10-Point Plan" as Foundation

As of 8:51 a.m. on April 9, the two-week ceasefire agreement recently reached between the United States and Iran has encountered major twists and turns on its first day of taking effect. The Trump administration reversed its previous commitment within 24 hours, explicitly refusing to take Iran's proposed "10-Point Plan" as the basis for subsequent negotiations and even dismissing it as "unacceptable." In response, Iran issued a stern warning on the grounds that three key provisions of the plan have been violated, stating that if the U.S. refuses to compromise, Iran's Supreme Leader will refuse to sign the ceasefire agreement. Currently, the definition of the Lebanon front remains ambiguous, and the Strait of Hormuz is actually still under blockade. Behind the short-term optimism in the market, analysts warn that this "Gaza-style ceasefire" has left core differences unresolved for the future, and there is significant uncertainty about whether the two-week negotiation window can be successfully passed.

Even before the ink on the ceasefire agreement was dry, differences between the U.S. and Iran had already become public. When Trump announced the ceasefire earlier, he stated that Iran's "10-Point Plan" could serve as a feasible basis for negotiations. However, within less than 24 hours, his stance completely reversed, and he instead insisted that the U.S.-proposed "15-Point Plan" should lead subsequent negotiations. Even though Iran had clearly rejected this plan earlier, Trump still claimed that "many of the provisions have been agreed upon," putting this already fragile ceasefire agreement in a dilemma.

According to CCTV News reports on April 9, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Speaker of Iran's Islamic Consultative Assembly, spoke publicly, accusing that before the official launch of U.S.-Iran negotiations, three key provisions of Iran's "10-Point Plan" had been violated. Specifically, these violations include: the failure to fulfill the commitment to a ceasefire in Lebanon, the illegal intrusion of a drone into Iranian airspace, and the U.S. refusal to recognize Iran's right to uranium enrichment. Iran made it clear that the "10-Point Plan" is the prerequisite framework for negotiations. If the U.S. persists in refusing to accept it, Iran's Supreme Leader will not approve the signing of the ceasefire agreement, and the ceasefire situation may collapse at any time.

Despite the undercurrent of tension, the market still regards this ceasefire as a signal of phased easing. Reflected in the capital market, U.S. stocks rose on Wednesday, and international oil prices fell below $95 per barrel. However, industry analysts generally hold a prudent attitude, believing that the gap between the core demands of the U.S. and Iran is huge, the ceasefire agreement lacks a solid foundation, and there is great uncertainty about whether it can be maintained until the scheduled negotiation window.

The White House quickly responded to Trump's stance reversal and strongly endorsed it. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt clearly stated that Iran's original "10-Point Plan" is fundamentally unserious and unacceptable, and has been completely rejected by Trump and the U.S. negotiation team—"literally thrown into the trash can." She further emphasized that "the idea that Trump would accept Iran's wish list as the basis for an agreement is completely absurd."

It is reported that the core content of Iran's "10-Point Plan" covers multiple key areas, including: coordinating with the Iranian armed forces to control the right to navigate the Strait of Hormuz, the complete withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from all military bases in the region, full compensation by the U.S. for losses suffered by Iran due to the conflict, the lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions against Iran and relevant UN Security Council resolutions, recognition of the legality of Iran's uranium enrichment activities, the establishment of a safe transit protocol in the Strait of Hormuz and ensuring Iran's dominant position, and the release of all Iranian assets frozen overseas. These provisions need to be confirmed through a binding UN Security Council resolution. Among them, the two issues of control over the Strait of Hormuz and the right to uranium enrichment have both touched Washington's clear red lines and are the core of the differences between the two sides.

In addition to the differences over the negotiation basis, the ambiguous definition of the Lebanon front has become another trigger for the escalation of the situation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated clearly on Wednesday that the U.S.-Iran ceasefire agreement does not apply to Lebanon, and Israel will continue military operations against Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. This stance is fundamentally different from the understanding of Iran and mediator Pakistan, and Iran has issued a warning in this regard.

According to Tasnim News Agency reports, Israel's continuous military strikes on Lebanon have prompted Iran to issue a tough warning: if Israel does not immediately stop the attacks, Iran will formally withdraw from the ceasefire agreement. In his statement, Ghalibaf listed the ceasefire in Lebanon as the primary violated provision of the "10-Point Plan" and quoted the previous public statement of Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who clearly announced that the ceasefire "takes effect immediately in all places including Lebanon and other regions." Trump did not clarify the Lebanon issue until Wednesday morning, explicitly stating that the ceasefire agreement does not cover the Lebanon front. In a phone interview with PBS, he even casually said, "The problem there will also be resolved, it's okay," further exacerbating the contradictions between the two sides.

At the same time, the tense situation in the region has not eased. The Kuwaiti military released a report stating that Iranian drones launched intensive attacks on local energy, power and desalination facilities, causing significant damage to the facilities; despite relevant opposing statements from the U.S., the Strait of Hormuz is actually still under blockade, and the uncertainty about the passage of this global energy artery persists.

In fact, Trump's announcement of the ceasefire this time was not an active compromise, but a passive choice under the superposition of multiple pressures. According to Xinhua News Agency analysis, when there was only about one and a half hours left before Iran's "ultimatum," Trump finally decided to declare a ceasefire, driven by the triple predicament of military, economic and political pressures.

On the military front, the large-scale air strikes by the U.S. and Israel against Iran have lasted for 40 days, and Iran has shown extremely strong resilience in resistance: U.S. military aircraft have been shot down and damaged by Iranian air defense fire multiple times, and high-value early warning assets have also been frequently destroyed. The saturated attacks by Iran's low-cost missiles and drones have even put the U.S. air defense system in a "magazine depth" crisis, making it difficult to respond continuously.

On the economic front, the negative impact of the war has continued to spread to the U.S. domestic market. Affected by the Middle East conflict, the price of gasoline in the U.S. has risen by nearly 40%, the financial market has fluctuated violently, and inflationary pressures have heated up again. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, previously warned that if international oil prices remain high, the U.S. economy will face the risk of recession.

On the political front, Trump's public opinion base has been severely eroded. His approval rating at the end of March fell to 35%, the lowest since he returned to the White House. The core voter camp has split, and many conservative opinion leaders have publicly opposed the continuous war. Republican Senator Rand Paul even bluntly stated that if the war continues to push up oil prices, the Republican Party will suffer a "catastrophic defeat" in the midterm elections.

At present, the negotiation arrangements between the U.S. and Iran have been initially determined. According to Xinhua News Agency reports, the two sides plan to hold face-to-face talks in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, this weekend. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz has officially invited delegations from both sides to attend the talks in Islamabad on the 10th. The U.S. delegation is expected to include Vice President Vance, Presidential Envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, while Iran will send a delegation led by Speaker Ghalibaf.

However, the prospect of negotiations is not optimistic. Analysts generally believe that the differences between the two sides are difficult to bridge. James Acton, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a U.S. think tank, pointed out that Iran's "10-Point Plan" does not involve any content related to the nuclear program at all, but includes key provisions such as the right to navigate the Strait of Hormuz. If the U.S. accepts it as the basis for negotiations, it will be a "huge concession." Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, even said bluntly that Iran's 10-point proposal "reads like a wish list drawn up by Iran before the war" and is difficult to serve as the basis for negotiations.

Dennis Ross, former U.S. President Clinton's Middle East envoy, stated that the situation in the next two weeks is likely to be full of variables, and the key lies in what substantive commitments each side has made and whether they are willing to abide by them. Ding Long, professor at the Middle East Institute of Shanghai International Studies University, believes that the differences between the U.S. and Iran are still significant, and Israel, as an uncontrollable factor, may further disrupt the situation. However, given that both sides are facing multiple pressures and their attitudes tend to be pragmatic, it is not ruled out that a compromise agreement may be reached in the negotiations. However, he also emphasized that this ceasefire is quite similar to the ceasefire model previously reached by the Trump administration in Gaza, both leaving core differences unresolved for the future. The past experience in Gaza shows that this approach often severely restricts the progress of subsequent negotiations and makes it difficult to achieve real peace.

Sources: Xinhua News Agency, CCTV News, Tasnim News Agency, China National Radio

Risk Warning and Disclaimer

Markets are volatile and investments involve risks. This article does not constitute personalized investment advice, nor does it consider the specific investment objectives, financial situations, or needs of individual users. Users should evaluate whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article align with their specific circumstances. Investment decisions are made at one's own risk.