The preliminary ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran, expected to be formalised on Friday, has been greeted not with relief but with a cascade of international scepticism. President Donald Trump has declared the deal a victory, yet the terms—a one-and-a-half-page document that remains largely secret—point to a return to the pre-war status quo. Iran has secured the unfreezing of tens of billions of dollars in assets and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz for its tankers, while offering only a vague commitment to discuss its nuclear programme over the next sixty days. Viewed from London, Moscow, and New Delhi, the accord looks less like a triumph and more like a face-saving exit from a conflict that failed to deliver any of Washington’s stated objectives.

When the US launched strikes on Iran in late February, neoconservative voices in Washington and pro-Israel hawks in Congress were among the loudest cheerleaders, promising a decisive reshaping of the Middle East. The White House insisted the campaign would permanently dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions—a claim that rang hollow after earlier bunker-buster bombings were already said to have achieved that goal. Four months on, the ceasefire effectively restores the pre-war situation, leaving analysts in European capitals to describe the war as “extremely failed” and questioning what, if anything, was gained by the resort to force.

Reactions across the political spectrum underscore the deal’s fragility. In Washington, Republican hawks and media commentators who once championed the war now express deep unease, with some calling it a surrender. The New York Times editorial board flatly declared that “President Trump lost this war.” From Moscow, the view is equally stark: the United States paid a heavy price in blood and treasure only to return to the same diplomatic starting point, while Iran emerges with its nuclear infrastructure intact and billions of dollars in sanctions relief. Indian analysts frame the outcome as an “abject American surrender,” noting that the world sees a superpower negotiating its way out of a conflict it once vowed would decisively reshape the region.

What remains is a ceasefire that kicks the can down the road, leaving Iran’s nuclear ambitions unaddressed and its regional influence undiminished. The promised sixty-day window for further talks offers little assurance, given Tehran’s history of using negotiations to buy time. For Washington, the deal may provide a temporary political reprieve, but it sets a troubling precedent: a military campaign that ends with the aggressor paying reparations and receiving only vague promises in return. As the details of the agreement come under greater scrutiny, the gap between the White House’s victory narrative and the strategic reality on the ground is likely to widen, testing both American credibility and the durability of any future diplomatic breakthroughs.