US President Donald Trump has agreed to a two-week ceasefire with Iran, which comprises a cessation of US and Israeli strikes in exchange for Iran lifting its ban on marine traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. In response, oil prices have plunged to around USD 95 per barrel, down from recent peaks of over USD 110, in a move which will come as a relief for many economies.

The ceasefire agreement was announced on 7 April 2026 on Trump’s Truth social platform. While Israel has agreed to cease strikes on Iran, the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to point out that the pause in fighting did not impact Israel’s operations in Lebanon, which remain ongoing. Thus far, Israel’s attacks in Lebanon are reported to have killed at least 1,500 people, and displaced 1.2 million others.

Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire comes at the end of a series of escalating and increasingly unhinged threats against Iran posted to President Donald Trump’s Truth social platform. A case in point was one particularly incendiary post in which Trump threatened: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”

Unsurprisingly, the post was interpreted by many as being a nuclear threat, and in response, calls for invoking the 25th amendment – in which the President can be removed from office – became increasingly common. Trump’s very public meltdowns on Truth social should be seen as a sign of the President’s increasing desperation in the face of being unable to end of the war he started.

Will the ceasefire hold? Most signs point to yes – despite tactical victories, the war with Iran has been an unmitigated political and strategic disaster for the US, causing wide-ranging economic damage to both the US and its partners. With the US Midterm elections due at the end of the year and Trump’s plummeting approval ratings, continuing the war makes little sense. Furthermore, it is unclear what Trump would be able to achieve if hostilities resume. If US forces were unable to keep the Strait of Hormuz open through force over the past month, having lost several high-value aircraft and burned through tremendous amounts of ammunition in the process, it is unclear what would be different in two weeks’ time.

Political lessons

The US and Israel’s war with Iran led to wide regional instability and a spike in oil prices which has already caused disruption to the global economy, and due to the time lag involved with restarting shipping, is likely to do so further despite the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

For Iran, the most likely takeaway is that the leadership will see the need to develop a credible nuclear deterrent as soon as possible. Having had a prior nuclear deal scrapped by Trump in his first term, having lost their supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and many of their key personnel, as well as being attacked twice during negotiations, the regime will likely draw the conclusion that neither agreements nor their conventional capabilities were sufficient to deter attacks from Israel and the US. While Iran proved sufficiently resilient to withstand US and Israeli bombing, this nonetheless came at a great cost in lives and economic damage – a price, it’s probably fair to say, they would rather not have to pay again.

For Europe, the continent has never been as strongly incentivised to pursue strategic autonomy independent of the US as it is today. The war with Iran, and Trump’s treatment of his supposed allies throughout, marked perhaps the final nail in the coffin of the patience many European leaders held for Trump. Dissent among the US’ NATO allies becoming increasingly overt – with key examples being Spain’s closure of its airspace and use of its military bases to US aircraft involved in the war; France’s refusal to allow Israel the use of its airspace for transporting weapons; and Italy’s withholding of landing rights at Sigonella airbase in Sicily for US bomber aircraft involved in the Iran campaign.

Many European leaders had previously held out hope that if they could just weather the Trump storm, the US would elect a friendlier President in 2029 and things could go back to the way they were. However, the crisis for transatlantic relations throughout Trump’s second term has forced European leaders to rediscover assertiveness, and such an outcome now looks extremely unlikely. Fundamentally, Trump has starkly revealed the depth of Europe’s military, economic, and diplomatic dependence on the US, and how such dependencies left it deeply vulnerable to coercion. This was a deeply humiliating experience which Europe will never want to endure again, regardless of who sits in the White House.

While Gulf countries have generally had an easier time dealing with Trump than European leaders have, Gulf leaders are far from happy about the US starting its conflict with Iran. For its part, Iran has revealed that in spite of Gulf states procuring high-end US equipment, hosting US bases, and receiving US military support, the US ultimately cannot stop Iran from striking Gulf state interests and causing major economic damage, nor from maintaining a credible chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz.

Ultimately the takeaway is that being allies with the US can be dangerous. Alongside this, a militarily assertive Israel is becoming a source of concern for numerous Arab states, especially in the wake of Israel’s 9 September 2025 strike on Doha, which has fuelled the perception of Israel as a destabilising force trying to militarily reshape the region in line with its own interests, often with the blessing or tacit support of the US.

All told, the recent war is likely to prompt some rethinking of the current security architecture and strategic calculus in the Middle East, in particular by Gulf states, whose stability and prosperity have been negatively impacted by the actions of their most powerful military ally. In this vein, Saudi Arabia’s strategic defence pact with Pakistan, signed in September 2025, provides an indication of the direction of travel with regard to a new security architecture. Moreover, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has repeatedly stated that his country would pursue the acquisition of nuclear weapons if Iran does. As a nuclear power, Pakistan would certainly have the know-how required should Saudi Arabia want to start its own nuclear programme.

While Trump may have launched his attacks on Iran with the goals of enacting regime change and ending the country’s nuclear aspirations, this war may well end up having the exact opposite effect. In the worst-case scenario, potentially two additional members could end up joining the club of nuclear-armed countries.