The two-week truce, announced by US President Donald Trump just hours before a threatened escalation, remains partial and uneven, especially after Israel made clear that it will continue operations in Lebanon.

The heavy bombing of Beirut and other areas, amid truce 'celebration,' has resulted in hundreds of deaths. Iran has already come down against this attack. It clearly shows that this is hardly a ceasefire across the region, but a narrow pause compelled by risk and pressure. After 40 days of intense war, what has emerged is not a deal with clarity, but a delicate and uncertain situation that exposes the limits of military power even as it opens a small window for diplomacy.

At the midpoint of this pause lies a strongly contested understanding of what has been 'agreed upon'. Trump has described the ceasefire as a 'breakthrough,' even suggesting that Iran may halt uranium enrichment and move toward a broader settlement.

Tehran, however, presents a very different picture. Its leadership has made it clear that the truce is conditional, tied strictly to a halt in attacks, and that its core positions - especially the right to enrichment - remain unchanged. Its 10-point proposal unfolds all this.

What we are witnessing is not a collective agreement, but two parallel narratives trying to profile the outcome of a war that neither side has decisively won. In Israel, there is a mourning criticism against Netanyahu, who has apparently been sidelined in the negotiation process.

The details of the truce remain partly hidden. Washington has not fully disclosed its framework, while Iran has put forward a detailed ten-point proposal. These include demands that would have been unthinkable just weeks ago: lifting of sanctions, compensation for damages, withdrawal of US forces, and even recognition of Iran's role in managing the Strait of Hormuz. The gap between these positions is palpable. It has nothing to do with technical adjustments; rather it concerns the future balance of power in the region.

Will this temporary truce lead to lasting peace?

The answer, at least for now, appears uncertain. The ceasefire is expected to stop the violence, but it does not resolve the conflict. The core disagreements - over nuclear policy, regional influence, sanctions and military presence - remain intact. Even during the truce, missile alerts have continued across parts of the Gulf and Israel, showing how quickly the situation could slide back into confrontation. Peace, in this context, is only a pause.

If we look back at how this war began, the contrast is noticeable. The original objectives of the US and Israel were clear and ambitious: weaken Iran decisively, dismantle its nuclear programme, and, in some circles, even push for regime change. Today, those goals have largely disappeared. Instead, the focus has shifted to more limited aims - keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, preventing escalation, and managing instability.

Iran, despite heavy damage, has neither collapsed nor surrendered its core positions. In that sense, the war has not delivered what its planners intended. It is seldom discussed that the Strait of Hormuz was open till the February 28 attacks on Iran.

This does not mean that Iran has emerged unscathed. Far from it. Large parts of its infrastructure have been damaged, its top leaders were killed, its economy has suffered, and its people have undergone significant hardship. Nonetheless, its political system remains intact, and its strategic capabilities - especially its ability to disrupt global energy flows - are still in place. That survival, after facing sustained attacks, allows Tehran to claim a form of resilience.

If there are clearer losers, they lie elsewhere. The GCC countries have borne a heavy cost. Countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait have faced missile and drone attacks, disruptions to infrastructure, and rising economic uncertainty. Their long-standing reliance on external security guarantees has been shaken. The idea that they could remain insulated from regional conflict has been tested and found wanting.

The global economy, too, has paid a price. The Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of the world's oil passes, became the focal point of the crisis. Even without a full closure, the mere threat of disruption pushed up energy prices, increased shipping costs, and unsettled markets. Supply chains were strained, and the ripple effects were felt far beyond the region. The truce has brought some relief, but uncertainty stays. Shipping may resume, but confidence takes longer to rebuild.

In this difficult terrain, one of the more unexpected developments has been the role of Pakistan as a mediator. Working behind the scenes, Islamabad managed to maintain communication with both Washington and Tehran. Its diplomacy was careful, driven both by necessity - given its own dependence on regional stability - and by strategic calculation. The decision to host talks in Islamabad signals a change. It shows that new actors can step in when traditional channels fail.

This raises another important question about the changing nature of diplomacy. Countries like India, with closer ties to both the Gulf and Iran, have not played a visible role in mediating this crisis. Pakistan's emergence as a bridge suggests that geopolitical space is opening up for those willing to engage positively and persistently. It also indicates an emerging trend: diplomacy is becoming less centralised, more fluid, and often influenced by those who can maintain trust across divides.

So, who has gained from this war? In a narrow sense, each side claims something. The US can point to a pause in hostilities and some stabilisation of markets. Iran can point to its survival and its strengthened bargaining position. But these are limited gains, set against widespread loss. The region is more unstable, the global economy more uncertain, and the political divide deeper than before.

The more important lesson lies in what this war has revealed. It has shown the limits of military power in achieving political goals. It has exposed the vulnerability of global supply chains to regional conflicts. And it has highlighted how rapidly local wars can become global crises.

The truce, therefore, should be seen as an opportunity. If used wisely, it could open space for serious negotiation. The talks in Islamabad may offer a chance to bridge some of the gaps, even if only partially. A key priority must be to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of critical routes like the Strait of Hormuz, which remain essential to global stability.

But for peace to last, something greater is required. Both sides will have to move beyond maximalist positions. The US and Israel must recognise that coercion alone cannot reshape the region. Iran must accept that its security concerns cannot be addressed through confrontation alone. Without such changes, the current pause will remain what it is - a temporary break in a longer conflict.

K.M. Seethi is director, Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension and academic advisor to the International Centre for Polar Studies at the Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU) in Kerala. He also served as ICSSR senior fellow, senior professor of international relations and dean of social sciences at MGU.