With minutes before a self-imposed deadline – and an unprecedented threat to wipe out Iran's "civilisation" - US President Donald Trump announced that a two-week ceasefire had been agreed to halt the war.

The mediators, Pakistan, are due to host American and Iranian negotiators for talks in Islamabad, possibly as early as Friday.

Many issues remain unresolved, starting with the basis of negotiations.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the US had received a 10-point proposal from Iran which he described as "a workable basis on which to negotiate".

Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also mentioned the US 15-point proposal Trump's chief negotiators have said could end the conflict.

Neither set of proposals has been formally unveiled – even though reported versions of both have been leaked and published and appear to be oceans apart when it comes to what each side expects to happen.

Adding to the confusion is the White House's angry insistence that the Iranian plan being discussed in the media is not the "working framework" received by US officials.

"A lot of details are not very clear," Anwar Gargash, senior diplomatic adviser to the UAE president, told the BBC.

"There are different statements coming out of Iran, from Washington and from the Pakistani mediator," he said.

"So, we need to reconcile the details of these statements and understand exactly what the way forward is. "

What are some of the central issues at stake?

Iran's nuclear programme The accusation that Iran was racing to develop a nuclear weapon was always cited as Washington's primary reason to go to war – despite long-standing denials by Tehran.

Publicly at least, American officials appear to believe that enough damage has been done since the 12-day war of last year and the current US-Israeli military attacks that it would take a long time for Iran to rebuild any kind of threatening nuclear programme.

Questions, however, remain about the fate of an estimated 440kg (970lbs) of highly enriched uranium still in Iran's possession.

The uranium, which Trump frequently refers to as "dust" is thought to be buried under the rubble of Iran's Nuclear Technology/Research Centre at Isfahan, following last year's devastating attacks on the site.

"Their dust is deeply buried and watched 24/7," US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters on Wednesday.

"There will be no Iranian nuclear weapons. "

Iran says any future deal must accept its right to enrich uranium for civilian use, under the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Oman, which was mediating between the two sides just before the outbreak of war, said a viable deal was on the table.

Will the US agree to allow any form of enrichment?

President Trump's 15-point plan reportedly included several key demands: that Iran dismantle all major nuclear facilities, end all uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, transfer enriched stockpiles out of the country and accept intrusive international inspections.

But when asked directly about it, Pete Hegseth said only that Iran would "never have a nuclear weapon or the capability to get a path to one".

A slightly different response.

Iran's missiles and drones Again, the 15-point plan is emphatic.

Iran should suspend ballistic missile development, stop production of long-range missiles and end drone transfers and military exports to proxies and allies around the Middle East.

Part of Washington's justification for going to war was that Iran's advanced missile programme had provided the country with a protective umbrella under which its nuclear programme could continue.

The Pentagon believes much of that umbrella now lies in ruins.

Gen Dan Caine, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, says 80% of Iran's missile facilities have been destroyed, along with 80% of Iran's air defence systems and 90% of its weapons factories.

Iran has previously rejected discussing limits on their ballistic missile programme.

Circumstances have now changed and it remains to be seen if Tehran is ready to accept curbs on missile and drone programmes as part of a long-term agreement with the US.

The Strait of Hormuz One of Iran's biggest achievements, apart from the fact that the regime of the Islamic Republic still stands, has been its newfound ability to place a stranglehold on shipping passing through one of the world's most important waterways.

Iran's apparent willingness to re-open the Strait now suggests that some of the pressures that have mounted on the global economy over the past month may start to ease.

Foreign Minister Araghchi says safe passage will be possible for the next two weeks, in co-ordination with Iran's armed forces and with what he calls "due consideration of technical limitations".

Since the current war started, Iran has indicated it wants to impose new rules for traffic moving through the Strait.

Some media reports have suggested that Tehran's plan includes the right to demand transit fees to the tune of $2m (£1.

5m) per ship, with the proceeds shared between Iran and Oman - the two countries which border the Strait of Hormuz.

For the Gulf states that ship their precious hydrocarbons through the Strait, this is a non-starter.

"This is totally unacceptable," Anwar Gargash told the BBC, calling it a dangerous precedent for other vital chokepoints around the world.

"I think this is going to be extremely dangerous.

And I don't think at the end of the day it will fly. "

Donald Trump does not appear to have ruled out the idea that Tehran could charge tolls, even apparently suggesting to ABC News that the US and Iran could run the Strait as a joint venture.

Administration officials insist that since the US depends very little on oil from the Gulf, other countries should take the lead in resolving the Hormuz issue.

Last week, the UK chaired talks involving more than 40 countries on how to unblock the Strait of Hormuz, with all participants agreeing that the war had to end first.

With a two-week window of opportunity now open, those discussions may gain momentum.

"We will continue to work with the shipping, insurance and energy sectors," UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said in a statement welcoming the ceasefire.

Is Lebanon part of the ceasefire deal?

In his social media post, announcing the pause in fighting, Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said the US and its allies "have agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere including Lebanon and elsewhere".

Iran insists on a cessation of hostilities on all fronts, "including against the resistance of Lebanon" - a reference to its Shia ally Hezbollah.

With large numbers of Israeli troops operating inside Lebanon and the Defence Minister, Israel Katz, talking about destroying border villages with the kind of ruthless ferocity seen in the Gaza Strip, there is little sign of this front falling silent.

For the time being, Donald Trump appears sympathetic to the Israeli government's position.

Lebanon is not part of the deal "because of Hezbollah," the US president told Liz Landers from US broadcaster PBS, adding the war in Lebanon was "a separate skirmish".

Trump's rhetoric Donald Trump's disruptive leadership style and highly unpredictable behaviour are all part of his modus operandi.

Supporters love the "madman theory" for its ability to keep opponents off guard and pull off previously unthinkable achievements.

Through threats of annihilation, he may have brought about a ceasefire, but the Iran war has tested his unique approach.

From the war's constantly shifting goals to his apocalyptic warnings, the war has threatened to undermine Trump's authority, not enhance it.

The president has shown that he's capable of launching a war, but does he now have the temperament needed to end it?

Highlighted sentences link to their corresponding claims. Click any highlighted sentence to jump to its detailed analysis.
Highlight Colors Indicate Claim Quality:
✓ Healthy Claim - No fallacies or contradictions detected
⚠️ Minor Issues - Has contradictions or minor fallacies
🚨 Serious Issues - Multiple contradictions or severe fallacies
Quality Criteria: Claims are evaluated for logical fallacies and contradictions with other news sources. Green highlights indicate healthy claims suitable for reference.
Source