U.S. President Donald Trump: Indefinite Ceasefire Extension at Pakistan's Request Due to Internal Divisions in Iran
U.S. President Donald Trump announced in a recent written statement that the ceasefire agreement with Iran will be extended "indefinitely" due to "serious divisions" within the Iranian government, making it difficult to present a unified position by the original deadline. At the request of Pakistan's Army Chief General Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the U.S. has agreed to continue suspending new military strikes against Iran to allow the Iranian leadership and delegation to formulate a unified proposal for further negotiations. Trump stated that he has ordered U.S. military forces to maintain a maritime blockade against Iran, remaining in "full readiness, prepared to act at any time." The ceasefire will last until Iran formally submits a proposal and completes negotiations, meaning the current "blockade + ceasefire" mixed state will become the default pattern in the medium to short term.
According to previous reports, the U.S. and Iran reached a two-week temporary ceasefire mediated by Pakistan, covering the Strait of Hormuz and several regional fronts. Before the ceasefire took effect, U.S. forces conducted large-scale strikes against Iranian naval, air, and some nuclear facilities, while Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and threatened to escalate regional conflict. Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif has publicly stated that diplomatic efforts are "progressing steadily" and called for the U.S. to delay the original strike "deadline" to allow room for negotiations. Trump had previously stated in media interviews that he was "extremely unlikely to extend the ceasefire," and this shift has been interpreted by several English-language media outlets as a compromise between maintaining military pressure and responding to the mediator's requests.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
This statement formally locks U.S.-Iran relations in a highly tense "wartime ceasefire" state: the maritime blockade and military buildup continue, substantive sanctions and military pressure have not weakened, but large-scale strikes have been temporarily paused. For Iran, this is neither peace nor full-scale war, but a "prolonged pressure" that exhausts its economic and political coordination capabilities: the blockade of Hormuz and damage to energy facilities have severely impacted its exports and finances, while internal factions are divided on whether and how to negotiate, making it difficult to form a unified external position in a short time. U.S. intelligence previously assessed that U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran have weakened its high-level decision-making and coordination capabilities; the current structure of "indefinite ceasefire + ongoing blockade" is, to some extent, exploiting this internal division to force Iran to make choices under extremely unfavorable negotiation conditions.
From a regional and global structural perspective, maintaining the maritime blockade is far more damaging to the world economy than a single airstrike: the continued closure or partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz means that Middle Eastern oil and gas cannot flow steadily through this chokepoint to the world, compounded by previous damage to Iranian oil and gas facilities, which has been viewed by the International Energy Agency as one of the largest energy supply disruptions on record. For the U.S., this state enhances its relative leverage in negotiations and energy pricing in the short term, while indirectly boosting the bargaining power of allied oil-producing countries and domestic energy companies; for emerging economies and Europe that rely on Middle Eastern energy, this represents another shock to input costs against a backdrop of inflation that has not yet been fully controlled. This "intermediate state" of not fighting but not retreating will continue to transmit through energy, shipping, and insurance costs to global inflation and growth expectations in the coming months.
Pakistan's position in this agreement deserves separate consideration: it is both geographically close to Iran and a key intermediary maintaining complex security and financial relations with the U.S. By actively mediating and requesting both sides to extend the ceasefire, Pakistan has objectively become the main "diplomatic transit station" between the U.S. and Iran, which not only enhances its political weight in the Islamic world and the Global South but also accumulates leverage in IMF negotiations, military aid, and investment issues. For the U.S., having the request for a ceasefire extension "come from Pakistan" can somewhat alleviate domestic hawks' criticisms of "not being tough enough on Iran," packaging the concession as "giving allies face and diplomatic space"; for Iran, Pakistan is one of the few channels that can dialogue with both Washington and Tehran, although this mediation may not necessarily be advantageous to Iran.
In the longer term, this "indefinite extension" further blurs the traditional boundaries between war and peace: blockades, sanctions, limited airstrikes, proxy wars, and diplomatic negotiations are all extended along an uncertain timeline, with conflicts no longer defined by formal declarations of war or ceasefire, but dynamically adjusted by "pressure intensity" and "negotiation progress." In this model, the ceasefire resembles a policy tool that can be repeatedly extended and adjusted in scope, rather than a clear legal node; great powers can reshape regional order through blockades and limited strikes without declaring war, while pushing formal peace agreements into an ever-delayed future. This "perpetual ceasefire state" is likely to become the new normal for conflicts in the Middle East and other regions—war is no longer a short-term, intense event, but a long-term, low-intensity yet broadly encompassing structural environment.