The guns have fallen silent in the Middle East after 40 grueling days of war, thanks to a last-minute two-week ceasefire declared by President Donald Trump. Announced mere hours before a 48-hour ultimatum lapsed, the decision has ignited a firestorm of international commentary, from biting sarcasm to cautious endorsement.
New Delhi was quick to applaud, staying true to its mantra of dialogue over destruction. Gulf states, battered by the economic ripples, sighed in collective relief. Yet, the world’s reactions reveal deep geopolitical fault lines.
Leading the critics, Russia’s Maria Zakharova branded the truce a humiliating setback for America and Israel following their February 28 ‘unprovoked aggression’ against Iran. Speaking on Sputnik, she reiterated Russia’s early demands to stop the escalation, framing it as a vindication of Moscow’s position.
France’s Emmanuel Macron struck a positive note on social media, hailing the de-escalation while flagging Lebanon’s precarious border. ‘Incorporate Lebanon for comprehensive peace,’ he implored, blending optimism with realism.
Berlin’s Friedrich Merz welcomed the breather, pushing for intensified talks to convert the pause into permanence.
From Kyiv, Andrii Sybiha praised the Hormuz Strait’s reopening alongside the ceasefire, pointedly urging Washington to replicate the feat against Russian forces in Ukraine.
Spain’s dual voice captured the tension: PM Pedro Sanchez deemed it ‘good news’ online, yet decried fire-starters and called for rule-based diplomacy. Foreign Minister Albares went further, slamming Israel’s Lebanon incursions as unacceptable post-truce, insisting all fronts—including the north—must quiet.
Britain’s Keir Starmer voiced hopes for broader relief. This patchwork of praise and critique underscores the ceasefire’s fragility. With Trump at the helm, can this 14-day window evolve into enduring stability, or is it merely a tactical timeout in an enduring rivalry?
