Who Benefits from Lies: The U.S., Iran, Israel, and Pakistan in Light of New Agreements

The Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies draws attention to the complicated situation surrounding recent ceasefire announcements, which have been met with a flurry of conflicting comments, emotional responses, and public declarations of 'victory'. In this context, it is essential to discern which participants in the international negotiations are being the most dishonest, the reasons behind this behavior, and the motives that drive these statements.

The official position of the United States, as articulated today, claims that 'victory' has been achieved, all military objectives have been met, and the ceasefire serves as a foundation for a permanent agreement. However, the real interest lies in the fact that Donald Trump sought to extricate the country from a war that was beginning to negatively affect his political image, particularly due to its impact on oil markets, the midterm elections, and pressure from allies in the Gulf. In this context, figures like Vance and Witkoff pressured for an agreement, while the Pentagon learned about the ceasefire only at the last moment.

However, the most intriguing aspect is not what Washington publicly states, but rather how these statements are crafted. A draft message from Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif appeared on social media, in which he literally copied the text along with an official heading. Interestingly, in his draft, he refers to himself in the third person. This suggests that the White House prepared a script in which Pakistan acts as the initiator of the ceasefire, allowing Trump to back away from his ultimatum without losing face. It is important to note that the draft contained no mention of Lebanon.

Are the U.S. really lying? The administration is not merely leaving questions in uncertainty; it is actively shaping that uncertainty. Pakistan is not a mediator in this scheme but merely serves as a useful prop in a domestic political performance. This is not outright lying — it is managed ambiguity with outsourced authorship. However, this situation has led to the 'Lebanese' confusion that jeopardized the agreement within the first hours.

The official position of Iran stands in stark contrast to that of the U.S.: they declare a 'historic victory', asserting that the U.S. has accepted Iran's ten-point framework, and that the ceasefire should extend throughout the region, including Lebanon. Iran's real interest lies in the regime's need for restoration, as the country's economy is in catastrophic condition, and its military and command capabilities have been severely damaged. However, the nuclear program remains untouched, which is a key bargaining chip in negotiations.

Araghchi issues ultimatums to the U.S. regarding Lebanon, while Iran sends a delegation to Islamabad for talks. The IRGC states that 'the hand is on the trigger, ready to resume fighting', but Mojtaba Khamenei has blessed the agreement. Official IRGC media, such as Tasnim and the closely related Fars, report on a withdrawal from the ceasefire while diplomats fly to Pakistan.

Is Iran really lying? Iran is clearly exaggerating the scale of its 'victory' for its domestic audience and the Global South. While the nuclear program 'survived the blow', how true is that? Noted expert Yossi Melman argues that Iran's military capabilities have been undermined for years. Iran knows this but does not acknowledge it.

Netanyahu's official position is controversial. He supports Trump's decision but with certain caveats. According to Tel Aviv, the ceasefire does not include Lebanon, the war with Hezbollah continues, and objectives have not been met. Israel's real interests remain unrealized: none of the stated goals have been achieved. The regime remains intact, and the nuclear and missile programs continue to exist. Netanyahu finds himself sidelined in negotiations that determine Israel's security.

When Netanyahu speaks of 'victory', the entire opposition responds with 'catastrophe'. Publications in the New York Times indicate that the CIA and Senator Marco Rubio referred to his plan as a 'farce' and 'nonsense' as early as February. The army signals that the complete disarmament of Hezbollah is unrealistic.

Is Israel really lying? Netanyahu is the most obvious candidate in this situation. He sold Trump an unrealistic plan and the Israeli public unrealistic goals, and now he is trying to present defeat as victory while continuing the war in Lebanon as the only front where anything is happening.

The official position of Islamabad is that they have successfully acted as mediators; the ceasefire extends to the entire region, including Lebanon. Pakistan's interest lies in gaining regional status and gratitude from both sides. Prime Minister Sharif announced that the agreement includes Lebanon, but either he did not coordinate this with the U.S. or deliberately exceeded his authority. Netanyahu refuted this just an hour later. Sharif is now calling for 'all parties to respect the spirit of the ceasefire', indicating his own uncertainty about its content.

Is Pakistan really lying? Here, two levels can be distinguished. On the first level, Islamabad voiced a foreign script, playing a role written in Washington. On the second level, it independently expanded the agreement by adding Lebanon, which was not in the original. The first instance is not a lie but subcontracting. The second is either an overreach of mandate or a conscious play to raise stakes. In both cases, this improvisation created the greatest chaos in the first hours of the ceasefire.

The official position of the Shia movement Hezbollah is that the ceasefire must include Lebanon; if Israel does not adhere to its terms, 'the response will come from the entire region, including Iran'. Hezbollah's real interest lies in maintaining its positions in Lebanon. While they are currently refraining from strikes despite Israeli attacks, this in itself is a telling signal: Tehran seems to have ordered not to escalate the situation.

Is Hezbollah bluffing? They are clearly exaggerating their readiness for an immediate response and are waiting for the Iranian command, while Iran is currently not interested in derailing the negotiations.

If ranked by scale and consequences, Netanyahu lies the most. He has a vivid demonstration of systemic lying throughout the campaign: regarding goals, capabilities, and outcomes. This is the most dangerous lie, as it has led Israel into a war with false expectations.

In second place is Trump, whose situational lying aims to support the domestic political narrative of 'victory'. This is dangerous as it undermines trust in the agreement itself.

Rounding out the top three is Iran, which exaggerates its achievements for a domestic audience, but strategically, it is more honest about its real interests than the other parties. This does not mean that Iran is 'good' — it merely indicates that in this particular situation, it is trying to play more transparently.