No Text, No Terms: How the US–Iran Ceasefire Became an Information War

On April 8, Donald Trump announced a two-week ceasefire with Iran. The statement did not come from the White House but from the social network Truth Social-before any official documentation appeared. This fact alone raised questions, because such decisions are usually formalized in documents, not published as commentary.

Photo: commons.wikimedia.org by U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class, https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/pdm/

USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) Conducts Group Sail (8749757)

Instead of classical diplomacy, we saw a political statement followed by no transparent legal framework. From that moment, it became clear that this was less an agreement and more a political construct that each side would interpret in its own way.

The main question that remains unanswered today is: who has actually seen the document on which the parties allegedly agreed?

An Agreement No One Has Read

So far, neither the United States nor Iran has presented a full text of a treaty that could be verified and analyzed. In the public sphere, only fragments exist-statements by Donald Trump, a letter from Iran's foreign minister, comments from the White House, and media retellings.

In reality, we do not have a single document but a collection of fragments that different sides present as the "agreement.” These parts do not form a unified picture and often directly contradict each other. The impression emerges that no agreement exists in the classical sense-only a set of political formulations.

This is the key to understanding the situation: the ceasefire exists as a collection of political statements, not as a unified legal text.

Pakistan as Mediator or as a Screen

Pakistan unexpectedly gained a key role in this story. Negotiations passed through it, and it was designated as a platform for future meetings. However, it is important to understand that Pakistan did not formalize any agreement and did not act as a guarantor of its implementation. Its role consisted mainly of transmitting signals and aligning positions between the sides.

That is why the so-called "Pakistani agreement” is not a treaty but a negotiation framework that each side fills with its own content.

Iran's Ten Points or the "Single US List”

The situation became even more confusing around the so-called ten-point plan that Iran calls the basis of the ceasefire. Tehran claims that the United States effectively accepted this plan and agreed to negotiate on its basis. However, a closer look at these points-especially in their early versions-shows that this is less a compromise and more a highly rigid package of demands that Washington could interpret as an attempt to impose capitulation terms.

This applies particularly to demands for compensation, sanctions relief, and recognition of the right to a nuclear program, which are difficult to reconcile with the US baseline position. In this context, even the clause about Iran renouncing nuclear weapons appears not as a concession but as part of a broader negotiating structure in which Tehran seeks to secure strategic advantages.

At the same time, Washington insists that only one list of conditions exists, discussed behind closed doors, while all other versions are either leaks or distortions.

Three Agreements No One Has Seen

Additional confusion came from Vice President J.D. Vance, who stated that several versions of the Iranian plan existed. If negotiations indeed relied on different documents-some rejected, others discussed-the question arises: which text forms the basis of the ceasefire? Today, neither journalists nor experts have an answer.

Vance's claim that one version was allegedly "written by ChatGPT" raises even more questions. Who delivered it to the Americans? Artificial intelligence itself? According to Vance, a second version came from a real negotiator, and a third-maximalist-had nothing to do with the deal. But someone must have delivered that one as well, otherwise how did he know about it?

As a result, we do not know which document underpins the ceasefire-perhaps because no single document exists.

Why Trump Attacks the Media

Donald Trump's sharp statements against the media do not appear accidental. They form part of a broader strategy of information control. He directly accuses journalists of distorting facts and threatens investigations, which shows how sensitive the topic is. The reason lies in numerous leaks that blur the official narrative and create the impression of an uncontrollable process.

This is not just a journalistic error. It is managed informational chaos, where each side promotes its own version of the deal without revealing the full picture.

In such conditions, the White House seeks to rigidly fix a single acceptable narrative and discredit alternative interpretations.

Why Iran Speaks of Violations-and Why It Makes Sense

Iran almost immediately declared that the United States violated the agreement, pointing to three specific episodes:

• continued military actions in Lebanon;
• refusal to recognize the right to uranium enrichment;
• violations of Iranian airspace.

However, a closer look shows that the sides understood the agreement differently from the outset. The United States claims that the ceasefire does not extend to Lebanon, while Iran considers it part of a broader regional conflict system.

This creates a situation where each side accuses the other of violating obligations that were never fixed in a unified text.

The Strait of Hormuz as a Pressure Tool

The Strait of Hormuz occupies a special place in this story. It suddenly became a key element of the ceasefire. For the United States, keeping it open serves as a condition of compliance, while Iran treats it as a zone of control and a tool of pressure.

Reports of its opening and subsequent closure appeared almost simultaneously, reinforcing the sense of instability. The strait has become not just a geographic point but a political lever embedded in the logic of negotiations.

Why Both Sides Declare Victory

At the same time, each side actively declares its own victory in categorical terms. Donald Trump speaks of a complete and unconditional US victory, while Iran claims that Washington had to accept its terms. This rhetoric may seem contradictory, but it follows a clear logic: in the absence of a transparent agreement, victory depends not on content but on presentation to domestic audiences.

This reflects the classic logic of modern conflicts: an agreement does not need to be objectively balanced-it needs to be politically advantageous at home.

Each side sells its version to its audience, strengthens its legitimacy, ignores contradictions, and dismisses opposing claims.

The Ceasefire as Part of an Information War

We observe not a classical ceasefire but a complex informational construct in which diplomacy intertwines with media politics. The absence of a unified text, multiple interpretations, and constant accusations create the impression of controlled chaos. Each side tries to impose its version while refuting the other's.

Thus, the ceasefire becomes not the end of conflict but its continuation in the information space.

At the same time, this construct has already produced a tangible result. Oil prices declined, markets reacted with reduced tension, and the global economy experienced a short-term stabilization effect that many countries dependent on Middle Eastern energy flows had expected. Even the announcement itself-regardless of its real substance-acted as a signal: risk decreased, panic subsided, and market behavior shifted.

In this sense, Donald Trump achieved what he needed without finalizing negotiations. He secured a "de-escalation effect” without signing a full agreement, strengthening his domestic position. For internal audiences, it appears as a controlled victory: conflict paused, markets stabilized, pressure reduced.

This is why the ceasefire functions not only as foreign policy but also as a domestic political instrument. It operates on multiple levels-reducing global tension, shaping economic effects, and reinforcing political standing in Washington.

Israel Outside the Framework

Israel became a separate and sensitive element of this construct. It effectively faced a fait accompli when the ceasefire was announced. According to available information, Israeli leadership received notice at the last moment, causing shock and irritation within political and military circles.

This pushes Israel toward independent actions outside the ceasefire framework. This explains the sharp increase in Israeli activity in Lebanon immediately after the announcement. Formally, Lebanon and Hezbollah are not included in the agreement, and Israel actively uses this gap to expand strikes and increase pressure.

This has already triggered panic within Lebanon, rising protest sentiment, and a strong reaction from Iran. The conflict does not freeze-it redistributes into areas outside formal agreements.

What Happens in the Next Two Weeks

The result is a situation where the ceasefire formally exists but bypasses a key front. This makes the entire structure extremely unstable and dependent on real-time actions. Internal dynamics in the United States, Iran, and Israel remain unpredictable, so developments will depend not on agreements but on political expediency at any given moment.

Given these contradictions, reaching a unified understanding of the agreement in the near future appears unlikely. The information space will likely fill with new accusations, leaks, and competing narratives.

Each side will continue defending its interpretation, increasing pressure on the opponent. Under these conditions, the two-week ceasefire looks more like a pause in hostilities than a step toward lasting peace.

Main Conclusion

The situation shows a ceasefire that exists more as a political and informational phenomenon than as a legally formalized agreement. The absence of a single document makes unambiguous interpretation impossible and creates room for manipulation. This allows both sides to declare victory while accusing each other of violations.

As a result, it appears that the conflict has not ended but has entered a new, more complex phase.