Donald Trump cedes ground to Iran before negotiations even begin

It appears Iran, not the United States, has set the ground rules for negotiations during the next two weeks about how to end the conflict in the Middle East, which has been so catastrophic to regional peace and the global economy.

Just hours after threatening that a "whole civilisation" would die unless the Iranian regime agreed to the demands of the United States, US President Donald Trump came back from the brink and said a two-week ceasefire would now begin.

The crux of this is a "10-point proposal" the US has received from Iran, which Trump said was "a workable basis on which to negotiate".

But if the 10 points are even remotely agreed to, it will mean the combined military might of the US and Israel has not only been unable to fully deliver the emasculation of Iran that they trumpeted, but that Iran will emerge with fewer limitations on it than it has felt for decades.

By defining what is "workable" in the framework set out by Iran, Trump has ceded ground before he has even started.

This is the most important point to understand in trying to see past the bluster of the US and Israel claiming either that all their military objectives have been met, or total victory.

Iran's 10-point plan

Different versions of the Iranian 10-point plan have emerged, but all contain points that, if the US agreed to, would run contrary to the very war objectives the US has outlined at various times, and even go further.

Iran's plan, according to the Secretariat of Iran's National Supreme Security Council, calls for the withdrawal of US combat forces from all bases and deployment points in the region; full compensation for Iran; lifting all primary and secondary sanctions against Iran and the release of its frozen assets.

These would be unthinkable concessions.

The Iranian "concession" of opening the Strait of Hormuz will also be done on Iran's terms, with the regime saying it will involve "controlled passage in coordination with Iran's armed forces".

In line with its previous comments, Iran is signalling that for the foreseeable future, it will control what shipping goes through the strait and whether, for example, shippers have to pay a levy to use it.

Another version of the 10-point plan, reported by an Iranian news outlet close to Iran's Supreme National Security Council, says there must be "acceptance that Iran can enrich uranium for its nuclear program".

It also calls for an end to all of the International Atomic Energy Agency's resolutions on Iran's nuclear program.

Given an insistence that Iran desist from developing its nuclear program, these are perhaps the proposals that most clearly make you wonder why Trump thinks this plan is "a workable basis on which to negotiate".

It means Iran could win concessions it has never won before.

Violent rhetoric sparks reaction inside US

That Trump has backed down so comprehensively is only made more stark by the contrast with the violence of his language 12 hours earlier.

He had claimed that "a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again", unless Iran opened the Strait of Hormuz and agreed to his terms.

The scale and escalating violence of his language — let alone that it reveals a sitting US president threatening what organisations, including Amnesty International, argued was genocide — feels like it has broken something in the US.

Legislators on both sides of politics have started speaking of invoking the 25th Amendment of the Constitution, which allows for the US president to be removed from office because he is incapable of discharging the powers and duties of his office.

The two-week ceasefire — which can be extended by mutual agreement — gives all those who have been affected by this conflict time to assess the situation in which they find themselves.

Iran has shown itself prepared to continue fighting, no matter what the damage to its population, and even after the significant damage done to its political leadership and military capacity.

The US and Israel, on the other hand, find themselves with seriously depleted weapons stores and the spectre of an even angrier Iran. Yes, they have seen the Iranian leadership decapitated. But they have not been able to remove the regime.

They have diminished Iran's offensive capacity, but they have not been able to eliminate it.

The conflict has also revealed that their vast military spending appears not to necessarily be keeping pace with the rapid evolution of warfare in the age of drones and other equipment.

While the brutal Iranian regime doesn't have to worry about political unrest, the political fallout for Trump from this unpopular war is massive, from his broken pledge to put America First to gas prices, as is the blow to his credibility as a strong man who gets what he wants.

Which brings us to the US-Israeli relationship.

An investigative piece by The New York Times, published today, Australian time, confirms the significant role Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played in persuading Trump to go to war with Iran.

According to the report, the Israeli leader was invited into the White House Situation Room on February 11, where he made a presentation — in conjunction with the head of Israel's intelligence service, Mossad.

It was, the report says, "a hard sell, suggesting that Iran was ripe for regime change and expressing the belief that a joint US-Israeli mission could finally bring an end to the Islamic Republic".

"Mr Netanyahu and his team outlined conditions they portrayed as pointing to near-certain victory: Iran's ballistic missile program could be destroyed in a few weeks. The regime would be so weakened that it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that Iran would land blows against US interests in neighbouring countries was assessed as minimal," the report said.

The US president told Netanyahu that it "sounds good to me", according to the report.

Alarmingly, most of his advisers were deeply sceptical of the briefing, but none were prepared then or in subsequent days to tell the president he should not proceed.

This is crucial knowledge to keep in mind as we watch how the US conducts itself in the negotiations in the next couple of weeks.

War in Lebanon set to continue

The US relationship with Israel will be central to determining how the negotiations unfold.

An example of their different priorities emerged in the past few hours with the revelation that Israel's prime minister did not believe the ceasefire included Lebanon.

One of the points flagged by the Secretariat of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, "ending the war against all components of the Resistance Axis", would mean halting attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon.

But Netanyahu says the "ceasefire does not include Lebanon".

Israel's assault on and invasion of Southern Lebanon — which has seen over 1 million people displaced from their homes — is set to continue.

Equally important to keep in mind over coming weeks is an understanding of how US opinion has shifted in recent times, not just the consistent opposition to this war, but in a wider sense, a profound shift in the way the American public sees the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In the wake of the assault on Gaza, a majority of Americans now side with the plight of the Palestinian people, rather than Israel.

That might not influence Trump directly. But it will be affecting those running in the midterm congressional races and, therefore, their capacity to back a strategy revealed to have largely been sold to the US president by Israel.

It remains impossible to believe that the US can actually agree to the majority of the 10 points in Iran's plan.

For now, the world can only assess the damage that has been done to people and infrastructure across the region, let alone global relationships, and wonder what comes next.

Laura Tingle is the ABC's global affairs editor.