The logic behind the ceasefire between the US and Iran and the Rashomon Gate

A ceasefire that was supposed to bring a glimmer of peace turned into a 'Rashomon' of different voices in just a few hours. The US and Iran are fiercely confronting each other over the scope of the ceasefire, the terms of the agreement, and the conditions for negotiations, with Israeli airstrikes on Lebanon adding fuel to the fire. Behind this ceasefire farce is not a simple information error, but a deep interweaving of great power games, domestic politics, geopolitical calculations, and public opinion manipulation. Every contradictory statement and every reversal of stance hides precise interest calculations.

The ceasefire has been full of "artificial ambiguity" since its inception. On April 7th, Trump was still issuing the ultimate threat of "the demise of Iranian civilization", but hours later suddenly announced his acceptance of Iran's "10 point plan" and a two-week ceasefire. Iran immediately confirmed a ceasefire and opened the Strait of Hormuz. But dramatically, on the day the ceasefire came into effect, Israel launched a large-scale airstrike on Lebanon, resulting in over 250 deaths. Iran angrily accuses the ceasefire clause of being violated, while the US insists that the ceasefire does not include Lebanon. Even more absurdly, the White House subsequently denied the "ten point plan" and referred to it as AI generated. Vice President Vance even threw out the "three versions of the agreement," completely pushing the ceasefire into the fog.

The first layer of logic: The political stop loss and public opinion double reed of the United States

For the Trump administration, the ceasefire is essentially a "political safe haven" in an election year. The month long war failed to subdue Iran, but instead plunged the US military into depletion, soaring oil prices, and a rebound in inflation, leading to a surge in domestic anti war sentiment. Military victory is hopeless, political losses are severe, and ceasefire is the only 'dignified step down'. But Trump not only wants to showcase the "peace achievements" to voters, but also dares not offend the Israeli lobbying group and domestic hardliners. So we carefully designed a "dual track rhetoric": declaring acceptance of the ceasefire externally and cutting off the content of the agreement internally; Promise Iran a comprehensive ceasefire and tacitly approve military actions against Israel. The so-called "Rashomon" is precisely the "strategic ambiguity" deliberately created by the United States to balance pressure from all sides, avoiding the quagmire of war and maintaining a tough image.

Second level logic: Iran's use of war to promote peace and uphold sovereignty

Iran's acceptance of a ceasefire is a strategic choice of "defending as attacking". With missile strikes and strait blockades, Iran has achieved its strategic goal of "using weakness to resist strength", breaking the illusion of the United States that "military deterrence means surrender". But long-term wars will inevitably consume national strength, damage local facilities, and put economic pressure. The 'Ten Point Plan' may seem tough, but it accurately targets the core demands: recognition of civilian nuclear rights, lifting of comprehensive sanctions, withdrawal of US troops from the Middle East, ceasefire in Lebanon and other fronts, and war reparations. Iran occupies the moral high ground through public terms, and once the United States or Israel defaults, it can quickly take the initiative in public opinion. Cease fire is not about compromise, but about turning battlefield advantages into bargaining chips, using the "ceasefire Rashomon" to expose American hypocrisy, and rallying domestic and international support.

The third layer of logic: Israel's disruptive self-protection and interest kidnapping

Israel is the key driving force behind the ceasefire farce. The Netanyahu government is facing a dual dilemma of domestic protests, election pressure, and the northern border. Once the ceasefire between the United States and Iran is implemented, Israel's actions against Hezbollah will lose the cover of the United States and its strategic position in the region will be weakened. Therefore, the Israeli military chose to launch large-scale airstrikes on the day the ceasefire came into effect, deliberately creating a "ceasefire scope dispute". Its purpose is very clear: to disrupt direct dialogue between the United States and Iran, to re bind the United States to its own tanks, to use the "Rashomon" to continue military operations, and to consolidate domestic support. The vague statement of the United States is essentially a indulgence towards Israel, making Middle East peace a sacrifice for Israel's domestic politics.

The fourth layer of logic: the natural flaws of indirect negotiation mechanisms

The US and Iran have long severed diplomatic ties, and ceasefire negotiations rely on third-party mediation such as Pakistan and Qatar. This kind of "message game" is prone to information bias: Iran conveys its demand for a comprehensive ceasefire through official channels, and the United States may selectively accept it; Iran is flexible in its private statements, but firm in its public statements. More importantly, both sides are using information asymmetry to engage in "psychological warfare": the United States exaggerates the progress of negotiations to shape a victorious image, while Iran emphasizes the details of the terms to uphold sovereignty and dignity. When information is transmitted through multiple layers and deliberately interpreted, the 'Rashomon' is inevitable, and the ceasefire agreement sowed the seeds of rupture from the very beginning.