The Night Before the Pause: How Trump, Iran, and Israel Approached a Ceasefire on the Brink of a New Major War

What happened in the last hours before the announcement of the pause

The night before the announcement of a two-week ceasefire between the US and Iran did not look like a calm diplomatic finale, but rather like a nervous race between the threat of massive escalation and a last-minute attempt to keep the situation from spiraling out of control. According to Axios, on April 7, 2026, the negotiation process reached a point where Washington was seriously considering new heavy strikes on Iranian infrastructure, and US allies in the region were preparing for an extremely harsh response from Tehran. Meanwhile, in the Islamic Republic itself, some civilians reportedly began leaving their homes, fearing further attacks.

The meaning of this story is not only in the drama of the moment. For the Israeli audience, something else is much more important: even when the White House publicly speaks the language of ultimatums, behind the scenes a completely different game may be going on — with intermediaries, drafts, mutual amendments, and constant fear that any wrong step will return the region to full-scale war. It was in this logic, according to publications by Axios and Reuters, that these last hours before the announcement of the pause passed.

According to Axios, one of the most nervous figures in this process was US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. The publication describes that on Monday he reacted sharply to the Iranian counterproposal of ten points, considering it unacceptable in its current form. Against this backdrop, the day turned into an almost chaotic correspondence between intermediaries, with new drafts of proposals quickly being passed between the American and Iranian sides.

Why intermediaries suddenly became key players

If you believe the publications by Axios, one of the main external channels of de-escalation became the Pakistani line. At the same time, other regional players were involved in the process: earlier Axios and Reuters reported that intermediaries from Pakistan, Egypt, and Turkey were involved in attempts to advance the ceasefire scheme. In other words, it was not about a direct and simple conversation between Washington and Tehran, but about a complex multi-level construction where almost every move passed through third capitals.

By evening, according to Axios, intermediaries had an updated proposal not for a longer pause, but for a two-week ceasefire. It was this format that ultimately became the basis for the announcement of the pause. Simultaneously, the Washington Post reported that Trump agreed to stop the prepared strikes literally shortly before the deadline, and Iran’s proposal began to be considered not as a dead end, but as a basis for further work, although disagreements remained huge.

Iran, Khamenei, and the fear of losing control over the process

Who in Tehran really made the decisions

One of the most remarkable details of this story, according to Axios, is the participation of the highest Iranian leadership in agreeing to the deal. The article emphasizes that the decisive moment came when the highest leadership of Iran gave negotiators the green light to conclude the pause. At the same time, different sources have discrepancies in names and the internal configuration of power, so accuracy is important here: it is reliably confirmed that without the approval of the regime’s top, the agreement would not have taken place.

Axios also draws attention to the role of Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who was not just a formal diplomat, but one of the central participants in the bargaining. According to the publication, he played the role of a link between the negotiation circuit and the power bloc, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This is an important detail for understanding the Iranian system: in Tehran, diplomacy almost never exists separately from the military decision-making center.

A separate touch that makes the whole picture even more tense is the reports that claims of Iran’s complete withdrawal from the diplomatic process were incorrect. On the contrary, judging by the publications by Axios and accompanying materials, negotiations did not completely break off even against the backdrop of threats, military preparations, and harsh rhetoric. This means that the external picture of rupture and the internal diplomatic reality at that moment were very different from each other.

What Israel felt in this scheme

For Israel, this entire configuration looked dual. On the one hand, Jerusalem was in constant contact with Trump and his team. Reuters directly reported on April 8 that Benjamin Netanyahu’s office supported the two-week pause on the condition of stopping Iranian hostile actions and resuming navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

But on the other hand, according to Axios, Israelis increasingly feared that they were losing control over the process itself. This is one of the most sensitive topics for Israel: when key security parameters are discussed in intense US-Iranian bargaining through intermediaries, Jerusalem inevitably begins to fear that the final form of the deal may turn out to be softer than the Israeli leadership would like. That is why the last conversation between Trump and Netanyahu before the publication of the decision on the pause was so important.

Why this pause may turn out to be just a respite

The most dangerous questions have not disappeared

The main problem, pointed out by both Axios and parallel publications, is that the ceasefire does not resolve the key disputes between the parties. It remains unclear how realistically Iran is ready to ensure the sustainable resumption of navigation, how firmly Israel intends to adhere to the framework of the pause, and whether it is possible at all to turn the current agreement into something more than a short respite. Reuters separately reported that negotiations in Islamabad should begin on April 10, but it is already clear: this will not be a final peace, but a new round of tough bargaining.

Moreover, fundamental differences remain between the US and Iran on what to consider an acceptable deal. The Guardian, analyzing the content of the Iranian 10-point plan, wrote that it involves demands that are difficult to reconcile with the American and Israeli vision of the future of the region: from sanctions and control over uranium enrichment to security guarantees and the status of the Strait of Hormuz. In other words, behind the beautiful formula of the pause lies an almost insoluble set of basic contradictions.

NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency in this context notes: for Israeli society, the main thing in this story is not the fact of a temporary lull, but the understanding that the war can resume very quickly if Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem see the ultimate goal of the negotiations differently. And for now, this is exactly how the situation looks: the US wants to impose a framework for a diplomatic exit, Iran seeks to gain room for maneuver, and Israel demands that any pause lead not to a cosmetic detente, but to a real dismantling of the nuclear, missile, and terrorist threat.

That is why this night should be considered not as a story of sudden peace, but as a moment when the region at the last moment stepped back from the edge. But stepped back not by much. Because if the basic contradictions remain in place, the current pause may go down in history not as the end of the war, but as a short interval between its two phases.