Just now, Trump spoke out! Israel, proposed ceasefire preconditions!

Iranian conflict brings the latest developments!

According to Xinhua News Agency, U.S. President Donald Trump, in an interview with Agence France-Presse (AFP), said the Iranian uranium enrichment issue will be “perfectly handled.” He also claimed that the two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran is “a complete and total victory” for the United States.

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s Office of Israel said that Israel supports Trump’s decision to pause strikes against Iran for two weeks, on the condition that Iran opens the Strait of Hormuz and stops attacks. The ceasefire does not include Lebanon.

So how will events unfold?

Trump speaks out

According to AFP, “a complete victory. A one hundred percent victory. Without question.” Trump said in a brief phone interview shortly after announcing the ceasefire. He did not explicitly say whether, if the deal falls apart, he would resume previous threats to destroy Iran’s civilian power plants and bridges. “You’ll know then,” Trump told AFP.

But Trump said that under this agreement, Iran’s problem of enriched uranium will be “perfectly resolved.” The fate of uranium is the key issue of this war, and Trump said the war is meant to ensure that the Islamic Republic can never obtain nuclear weapons. “This will be handled properly, otherwise I would not agree to a reconciliation,” Trump said, but he did not specify how the uranium would be handled. Trump also added that he believes China helped Iran return to the negotiating table to reach a two-week ceasefire agreement.

According to a report from U.S. sources on the 7th, two U.S. officials said that before President Trump announced the ceasefire with Iran, he separately spoke by phone with Pakistan Army Chief of Staff Munir and with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The report did not disclose the specific contents of the calls. It is understood that Munir is a key point of contact between the United States and Iran.

According to a report by the U.S. network CNN on Tuesday local time (the 7th), the Trump administration is preparing for a possible in-person meeting between U.S. and Iranian officials. U.S. officials said that both sides are currently working to reach a long-term agreement to end the conflict between the United States and Iran. Given that the U.S. and Iran have just announced a two-week ceasefire agreement, the possibility of holding this meeting is becoming increasingly likely.

U.S. officials said the meeting is likely to take place in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, with Pakistani mediation personnel present. U.S. Vice President Vance, the presidential envoy Witkoff, and Trump’s son-in-law Kushner are expected to attend the meeting. The White House press secretary Leavitt confirmed that both sides are indeed currently discussing an in-person meeting, but she also said that nothing has been finalized before any formal announcement by the president or the White House.

At the same time, the Prime Minister’s Office of Israel said that Israel supports Trump’s decision to pause strikes against Iran for two weeks, provided that Iran opens the Strait of Hormuz and stops attacks.

How will the situation play out?

According to GMF market commentary, both sides appear to have consensus on restoring passage through the strait and on managing the conflict.

The United States and Iran have some consensus and room for negotiation on four fronts, including restoring passage through the Strait of Hormuz, lifting sanctions on Iran, broader and further negotiations, and managing regional conflicts. In an environment with such a lack of mutual trust, reaching a “temporary ceasefire agreement” means that the level of consensus between the two sides (or what they fear together) is more than expected.

Based on current statements, restoring passage through the strait (Iran collecting money or enhancing its international image to guarantee future negotiation interests, and the United States reducing the oil price) and managing the conflict (Iran avoiding damage to economic facilities, and the United States avoiding the situation spiraling out of control) appear to be common ground.

However, the two sides differ in how they describe the preconditions for the ceasefire. Iran believes (at least publicly claims) that the United States accepted the 10-point demands put forward by Iran. These 10 demands are different from the version from yesterday, including: “coordinating with Iran’s armed forces to control passage through the Strait of Hormuz; ending the war against all members of the ‘Axis of Resistance’ and ending the aggression of the Israeli regime; withdrawing all U.S. combat forces from all bases and deployment points in the region; establishing a secure transit agreement in the Strait of Hormuz to ensure Iran’s leading position; fully compensating Iran’s losses based on assessment results; lifting all first- and second-tier sanctions and related UN Security Council resolutions; releasing all Iranian assets and properties frozen overseas; and finally, all of these matters should be approved in binding UN Security Council resolutions.”

The United States (based on Trump’s Truth) believes that Iran agreed to open the Strait of Hormuz, and that the 10-point demands are merely the basis for negotiations. This kind of disagreement over the specific text is very common in tense negotiations at the final stage, and it reflects more political messaging and bottom-line signaling. Investors should focus on each side’s “willingness” and “bottom line,” but should not try to read too many details of future agreements from it.

The institution tends to believe that Iran will ultimately obtain a decent deal because the basis for negotiations is the 10-point demands proposed by Iran, not the 15-point demands proposed by the United States. Pakistan played an important role in this ceasefire agreement. Moreover, Iran’s 10-point agreement includes a final item requiring that “it be approved in binding UN Security Council resolutions.” Iran is clearly hoping to obtain international sympathy and support to apply reverse pressure on the United States, and it is expected that future, nominal U.S.-Iran negotiations will include more multilateral elements. The possibility of more countries participating substantively cannot be ruled out.

The worst time may already be over.

In this conflict, both the U.S. and Iran played the “chicken game” right up to the last moment. It is expected that both sides will think twice before escalating the situation. In the short term, actual commercial navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, progress on launching negotiations in Islamabad, and of course the deployment of U.S. military forces will be the focus of market attention.

Layout: Wang Lululu

Proofreading: Liu Rongzhi