US Vice President J.D. Vance’s comment saying Iranians are better negotiators than fighters has found resonance among analysts who view the two-week ceasefire brokered by Pakistan as a face-saving off-ramp for Donald Trump to disengage from West Asia.
The US and Iran have both claimed victory in the West Asia conflict, with talks expected to begin in Islamabad from Friday.
President Donald Trump spoke of a “100 per cent total and complete victory”, while Iran’s Supreme National Security Council framed the deal as a win over the US, asserting that Washington had accepted Tehran’s terms to end hostilities.
Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, argued that the biggest setback for Washington was its failure to achieve “regime change” — a key objective behind the war.
The 10-point proposal sent by Tehran, which Trump initially called a “workable basis” for negotiations, leaves critical questions unresolved — particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global oil route whose reopening Washington had demanded.
Chellaney pointed to this ambiguity as a sign of shifting leverage.
“What Trump demanded as an unconditional reopening has instead evolved into a tacit recognition of Tehran’s authority, with Iran poised to levy transit fees much like Egypt does in the Suez Canal”, he wrote on X.
US Vice President J.D. Vance, speaking at Budapest, hours after the ceasefire, made a comment saying Iranians are better negotiators than fighters.
Warwick Powell, adjunct professor of Queensland University of Technology, similarly argued during an interview on China Global Television Network that the proposal originated from Tehran, not Washington, and reflected a weaker US hand.
He called much of the American messaging “blunder in very typical Trump fashion”, adding that Iran had effectively “called the bluff” of the US at this stage of the conflict.
Trita Parsi, an Iranian-American relations expert, also underscored the uncertainty around Hormuz, noting that the deal does not clarify whether Iran would impose transit fees on ships passing through the waterway.
He argued that Tehran’s leverage has grown, pointing to its stronger stance on sanctions relief compared to previous negotiations.
Parsi suggested that Iran is not seeking a temporary ceasefire but a permanent end to hostilities, partly to avoid becoming entangled in Israel’s “mowing the lawn” strategy — a reference to repeated military strikes across Gaza, Lebanon and Syria over weeks and months.
Rather than using Hormuz as a bargaining chip to end the war, he said, Tehran may instead leverage potential transit fees — despite lacking a clear legal basis — to reshape economic ties with Asian partners that drifted away under US sanctions.
Chellaney further argued that while Iran’s leadership, previously under domestic strain, has consolidated its hold on power, the conflict has left the US weakened and geopolitically isolated, with Gulf allies forced to deal with the fallout of strikes on energy infrastructure.
“The war has eroded not just Trump’s credibility, but that of the United States itself,” he said, also pointing to a hit to Trump’s domestic approval ratings ahead of the midterm elections.
He added that Trump’s public frustration with Nato allies, as well as security partners such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, signalled a lack of global backing for Washington’s actions, which he said lacked precedent in international law.
Trump’s own stance on the deal appeared to shift.
While he initially called Iran’s proposal “workable”, he later dismissed it as fraudulent without offering details. The ceasefire announcement came just 90 minutes before his deadline for Tehran to either capitulate or face what he had warned would be “an end of civilisation”.