A ceasefire agreement reached on Tuesday, April 7, 2026 between Iran and the United States provides a fragile respite to a global economy shaken by weeks of tensions. Despite claims of victory from both sides, is this a diplomatic success or a strategic setback for Donald Trump?
The ceasefire agreement on Tuesday, April 7, 2026 between Iran and the United States offers a fragile respite to a global economy shaken since the beginning of the conflict on February 28. While this two-week truce may alleviate some tensions, not all sectors will return to normal at the same pace.
From Washington to Tehran, each side claims victory. Donald Trump touts a “complete and absolute victory,” asserting that the issue of the Iranian nuclear program would now be “perfectly resolved.” In Iran, the tone is equally firm: authorities hail “a great victory,” while reminding that the war is not over and the truce is contingent on the outcome of negotiations.
So, is this a true diplomatic success for Donald Trump or a strategic retreat? To discuss, The Headline at the Top welcomes Bertrand Badie, distinguished professor at Sciences Po Paris, specialist in international relations, and author of Beyond Power and War, the mysterious social energy.
As the end of the ultimatum approaches, Donald Trump declared that “an entire civilization would die,” but overnight, Iran and the United States announced a two-week ceasefire agreement. What happened?
We could start with the exaggeration of language. The President of the United States was so emphatic that the situation took on a dramatic turn considered by some as unbearable. There were probably numerous diplomatic transactions and conversations faced with such a threat, but that is not the essence of the issue. It comes down to three elements. Firstly, for about six weeks, no clear or concrete strategic results could be achieved. This operation appeared increasingly irrational, forcing its initiators to find an exit.
Secondly, Donald Trump found himself trapped in a situation that solidified: this war turned into a global war, affecting the entire world system, economies, and societies. What was supposed to be an operation to eliminate risks became a production of generalized risks.
Finally, the determining factor was the rapid evolution of public opinions. The Hispanic electorate, which ensured his victory in 2024, turned against him, jeopardizing the mid-term elections. Similarly, the Israeli public opinion, originally favorable, suddenly split. Donald Trump lacked the social energy to support an operation that, strategically, had little chance of success.
Have these direct consequences, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, made him back down?
The lack of foresight is striking. Clear risks were not taken into account, such as the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz or the dismantling of the Gulf petromonarchies. This dismantling concerns their oil production, as well as the survival of these airport hubs and the credibility of their leaders. The Saudi Crown Prince 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 flaw of consequentialism found in the United States and, to a certain extent, in Israel. Faced with a doomed operation, one either stops it or plunges into a risky escalation. This danger is not entirely excluded today. When a leader is cornered, he may resort to extreme actions to preserve American credibility.
Donald Trump had announced that Iran could be destroyed in one night. Was he truly ready to go all the way?
It should be understood that this man is essentially an actor manipulating exaggeration to speak to his voters. His statements should not be taken at face value; they are intended to impress his audience. However, the risk is to be trapped in his own rhetoric and be compelled to act to avoid losing all credibility.
His messages backfired. Insulting the Iranian people canceled any initial support within a population already exasperated by its regime, and instead strengthened moderate elements or those associated with power. Moreover, his speech was very poorly received by his allies, especially in Europe, putting him in a situation of objective isolation.
The American president claims a total victory. Is it a masterstroke or a retreat?
It is a complete defeat. Although the art of politics involves turning failures into illusions of victory, the result here is nil despite enormous investment. Instead of regime change, we are witnessing its consolidation. Iran has demonstrated its reactive capacity and succeeded in holding the global economy hostage by blocking the Gulf.
During his press conference, Donald Trump spent an hour boasting about 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 poor.
So, Donald Trump hasn’t gained anything?
He has 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 achieves control of the Gulf, lifting of sanctions, and acceptance of uranium enrichment. This is a huge defeat for the United States and Israel, which aimed at the annihilation of the Iranian regime. Israel seems to have accepted the end of its military operation, but there remains uncertainty concerning Lebanon, as the Iranian side is playing on this regional solidarity.
In the peace plan proposed by Tehran, there is talk of passage fees for the Strait of Hormuz and uranium enrichment. Is Iran ultimately the big winner?
That is the logical consequence of the current situation. However, nothing is definitive since the ceasefire is for fifteen days and negotiations begin on Friday in Pakistan. Trump could try maneuvers to save face, risking everything to change once again. This situation proves 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 is a trend seen since the decolonization wars, Vietnam, or Afghanistan. It is remarkable to see a superpower with a defense budget of $1.5 trillion ending up with such a result.
Le Titre à la Une, your daily podcast on current events
If you want to go beyond the headlines, every day, Zacharie Legros explains the news with an exceptional guest to provide you with the keys to understanding the major events making the headlines. A clear and accessible podcast to gain perspective on the news. A new episode is available every evening on the BFM website and app as well as on all listening platforms: Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Deezer, or Spotify.
