With not one but two ceasefires now holding across the Middle East, could the region be on the verge of two significant diplomatic breakthroughs?

The pauses in fighting — one involving Iran and another in Lebanon — are both being described as fragile, which is often the case with such arrangements. Still, as the sound of combat subsides, a window has opened that carries both promise and peril.

At first glance, Thursday night’s declaration of a 10-day halt in hostilities between Israel and the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah appears to favor Tehran.

Iran’s leadership had insisted that progress in talks with the United States would be impossible without a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Now that the pause has been secured, Iran has responded by announcing that the Strait of Hormuz is “completely open.”

Yet last weekend’s lengthy round of negotiations in Islamabad demonstrated that diplomatic movement was possible even while clashes in Lebanon persisted, with Israel refraining from additional strikes on Beirut. Nevertheless, both Iran and Pakistan maintained that Lebanon had to be part of any broader arrangement.

That condition has now been met, to the frustration of many Israelis living near the northern border. Some believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yielded to pressure from Washington rather than ensuring Hezbollah would no longer be able to launch rockets into Israel.

For critics within Israel, the ceasefire appears to grant Iran leverage, enabling it to shape events to its advantage.

Shirit Avitan Cohen of the right-leaning daily Israel Hayom argued that the ceasefire effectively legitimizes the connection between Iran and the Lebanese arena — precisely the scenario Israel had sought to avoid.

She added that Hezbollah now has confirmation that its patron, and by extension Lebanon’s influence, remains firmly engaged in steering regional developments.

In reality, each party involved in these intertwined conflicts gains something from the arrangement.

For US President Donald Trump and Iran’s leadership, it provides an opportunity to claim credit for reducing tensions.

Netanyahu can point to the continued presence of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon, while Lebanon’s government has, after prolonged effort, entered direct discussions with Israel.

Hezbollah, while pledging to respect the ceasefire and asserting it remains prepared to act if necessary, maintains that it has not been defeated and rejects any immediate disarmament.

Senior Hezbollah official Wafiq Safa said that relinquishing weapons would only be considered after a comprehensive ceasefire, a full Israeli withdrawal, the return of detainees, the resettlement of displaced residents, and reconstruction efforts.

Lina Khatib of Chatham House suggests that while the ceasefire enables Israel and Lebanon to continue face-to-face talks, the barriers to a formal peace agreement are substantial.

She notes that unresolved issues include defining the border, addressing Hezbollah’s arms, and ensuring Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

Technically, Israel and Lebanon have remained in a state of war since 1948 and have never established diplomatic relations.

However, Khatib contends that recent direct discussions in Washington between Israeli and Lebanese diplomats signal a shift that could gradually reduce Iran’s grip over Lebanon.

According to her, the regional balance of power appears to be tilting away from Tehran, limiting its ability to use Lebanon as a strategic bargaining chip.

Much, however, depends on the parallel diplomatic track between the United States and Iran.

Any future negotiations are expected to address what Washington and Israel describe as Iran’s destabilizing activities across the Middle East.

For Israel especially, curbing Iran’s backing of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen is crucial, as these alliances have formed what Tehran calls its “Axis of Resistance.”

Iran is unlikely to abandon what it views as an essential instrument of regional influence without significant concessions.

And that challenge is only one of several difficult issues on the table.

Questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the future status of the Strait of Hormuz will require intensive negotiation.

President Trump has projected confidence, stating that a deal with Iran is near and describing developments in optimistic terms. He has claimed that Iran agreed to hand over roughly 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, reportedly stored at a facility in Isfahan damaged in previous strikes.

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, rejected that assertion on state television, insisting that transferring enriched uranium to the United States is not under consideration and equating it to a matter of national sovereignty.

Any nuclear agreement would require firm assurances that Iran would never pursue a nuclear weapon and clear terms on how long uranium enrichment would be suspended.

Another critical issue is Iran’s use of the Strait of Hormuz as leverage — a strategic measure it has only recently employed.

Tehran has called for new maritime protocols governing passage through the narrow waterway, proposing a legal framework that would recognize what it considers its sovereign authority, alongside Oman, over traffic entering and leaving the Gulf.

For now, Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi has said the strait will remain fully open for the duration of the ceasefire, meaning the coming week.

He added that ships must follow a coordinated route designated by Iran’s Ports and Maritime Organization.

This likely refers to newly outlined paths running closer to Iran’s coastline, north of the established shipping lanes used before the conflict.

It remains uncertain how quickly these adjustments will clear the backlog of vessels waiting in the Gulf.

Trump has declared that the strait is fully operational and ready for normal transit, and financial markets have reacted positively. Still, ship captains may remain cautious, especially since US sanctions affecting Iranian ports are still in place.

Despite encouraging signs, negotiators face a formidable agenda.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which focused solely on Iran’s nuclear program, required nearly 20 months of negotiation. The agreement unraveled after the United States withdrew in 2018.

Trump frequently emphasizes swift deal-making but has faced criticism over the lasting impact of previous diplomatic efforts.

His high-profile summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in 2018 and 2019 generated headlines but delivered limited tangible results, as North Korea’s nuclear activities have continued.

Nevertheless, after weeks of turbulence, a renewed diplomatic process is underway and has gained momentum following the ceasefire in Lebanon.

Whether this progress will be sufficient to avert another descent into war remains uncertain — and even the most confident leaders cannot predict the outcome.