The ceasefire reached on Tuesday, April 7, 2026, between Iran and the United States provides a fragile respite after weeks of tensions that have shaken the global economy. Despite claims of victory from both sides, is this a diplomatic success or a strategic setback for Donald Trump?
The ceasefire agreement reached on Tuesday, April 7, 2026, between Iran and the United States offers a fragile respite to a global economy shaken since the start of the conflict on February 28. While this two-week truce may ease some tensions, not all sectors will return to normal at the same pace.
From Washington to Tehran, each side claims victory. Donald Trump speaks of a “total and complete victory,” stating that the Iranian nuclear issue would now be “perfectly resolved.” In Iran, the tone is equally firm: authorities hail “a great victory,” while emphasizing that the war is not over and the truce is conditioned on the outcome of negotiations.
So, is it a real diplomatic success for Donald Trump or a strategic retreat? To discuss this, Le Titre à la Une welcomes Bertrand Badie, distinguished professor at Sciences Po Paris, specialist in international relations, and author of “Beyond Power and War, the Mysterious Social Energy.”
– Context: Ceasefire agreement between Iran and the United States. – Fact Check: The content discusses the implications of the ceasefire deal between Iran and the United States under Donald Trump’s leadership.
As the ultimatum approached, Donald Trump declared that “an entire civilization would die,” but in the night, Iran and the United States announced a two-week ceasefire agreement. What happened?
Several factors contribute to this situation. Firstly, for about six weeks, no clear or concrete strategic result could be obtained. This operation appeared increasingly irrational, leading its initiators to find an exit strategy.
Secondly, Donald Trump fell into a trap that solidified: this war evolved into a global conflict, affecting the entire world system, economies, and societies. What was meant to mitigate risks turned into a production of generalized risks.
Lastly, a decisive factor was the rapid evolution of public opinions. The Hispanic electorate, which secured his victory in 2024, turned against him, jeopardizing the midterm elections. Likewise, the Israeli public opinion, initially supportive, suddenly divided. This social energy crucial to supporting an operation lacking strategic chances was missing for Donald Trump.
– Context: Factors contributing to the ceasefire agreement between Iran and the United States. – Fact Check: The text explores the reasons behind the ceasefire agreement and its implications for international relations.
Is this particularly direct consequences, especially around the Strait of Hormuz, made him buckle?
The lack of foresight is striking. Obvious risks were not taken into account, such as the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or the dismantling of Gulf petromonarchies. This dismantling involves their hydrocarbon production, as well as the survival of these airport hubs and the credibility of their leaders. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia was publicly humiliated by Donald Trump, destabilizing the operation.
It is surprising that such a lack of foresight exists at this level of responsibility. It is a consequentialism flaw found in the United States and, to some extent, in Israel. Faced with a doomed operation, one either stops it or embarks on a risky escalation. This danger is not completely eliminated today. When a leader is cornered, they may resort to extreme actions to preserve American power’s credibility.
– Context: Lack of foresight and consequences of the situation around the Strait of Hormuz. – Fact Check: Discussion on the risks and consequences involved in the conflict.
Donald Trump had announced that Iran could be destroyed in a single night. Was he really prepared to go all the way?
It is essential to understand that this man essentially manipulates exaggeration to connect with his supporters. His statements should not be taken literally; they aim to impress his audience. However, there is a risk of getting trapped in his rhetoric and being forced to act to avoid losing all credibility.
His messages had a boomerang effect. Insulting the Iranian people canceled any initial support within a population already exasperated by its regime, and instead reinforced moderate elements or those associated with power. Additionally, his rhetoric was poorly received by allies, particularly in Europe, placing him in an objectively isolated situation.
– Context: Understanding Donald Trump’s rhetoric and its impact on international relations. – Fact Check: Examination of Trump’s statements regarding Iran and the potential consequences.
The American president claims total victory. Is this a masterstroke or a retreat?
It is a complete defeat. Although the art of politics involves transforming failures into illusions of victory, the result here is null despite enormous investment. Instead of a regime change, we witness its consolidation. Iran has shown its reactive capacity and succeeded in holding the global economy hostage by blocking the Gulf.
During his press conference, Donald Trump spent an hour praising the technical rescue of a pilot; for a global superpower, devoting so much time to such a minor success shows that the strategic balance is extraordinarily thin.
– Context: Evaluation of Donald Trump’s claims of victory. – Fact Check: Discussion on the actual outcomes of the conflict and its implications for the involved parties.
So, Donald Trump didn’t gain anything?
He gained nothing. The ten-point plan presented by the Iranians is completely at odds with the initial American demands. Iran could emerge stronger from these negotiations if it obtains control of the Gulf, the lifting of sanctions, and acceptance of uranium enrichment. This is a huge defeat for the United States and Israel, who aimed for the annihilation of the Iranian regime. Israel seems to have accepted the end of its military operation, but uncertainty remains regarding Lebanon, as the Iranian side plays on this regional solidarity.
– Context: Assessment of gains and losses in the conflict. – Fact Check: Analysis of the outcomes for the United States, Iran, and Israel in the ceasefire agreement.
Regarding the peace plan proposed by Tehran, which includes passage fees for the Strait of Hormuz and uranium enrichment, is Iran ultimately the big winner?
This is the logical consequence of the current situation. However, nothing is definitive since the ceasefire is for fifteen days, and negotiations start on Friday in Pakistan. Trump may try maneuvers to save face, risking a reversal. This situation demonstrates that power is not what it used to be and that, in the contemporary context, the weak have means to prevail over the strong. This trend has been observed since decolonization wars, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. It is striking to see a superpower with a $1.5 trillion defense budget resulting in such a outcome.
