Trump on Tuesday indefinitely extended a two-week truce with Iran to allow more time for negotiations, while maintaining a U.S. blockade on Iranian ports.

Tehran has yet to formally respond to the extension.“The current regional situation stands at a critical juncture transitioning between war and peace; the paramount priority remains to make every effort to prevent a resumption of hostilities,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun told a regular press briefing.

Guo did not directly address the specifics of the ceasefire extension but said Beijing would continue to play a “constructive” role in promoting stability in the region.

China has consistently called for de-escalation amid rising tensions linked to the conflict involving the United States and Iran, emphasizing diplomatic engagement and the protection of regional security.

Witkoff, speaking during a cabinet meeting, confirmed for the first time that the United States had passed the proposal via Pakistan, which is facilitating indirect communication between the two sides.

He said the effort sought to present Iran with what he described as a critical juncture, warning that failure to engage could lead to further escalation.

Germany’s foreign minister Johann Wadephul said the United States and Iran had already held indirect contacts and were preparing for a potential face-to-face meeting. He told Deutschlandfunk radio that such a meeting could take place “very soon” in Pakistan, though no official date was disclosed.

Pakistan’s role as a conduit underscores the absence of direct diplomatic ties between Washington and Tehran, with both sides relying on intermediaries to exchange proposals amid heightened regional tensions.

lAccording to the details outlined by Witkoff, the U.S. proposal includes stringent conditions on Iran’s nuclear activities. These include a prohibition on weaponization, dismantling of the Fordow nuclear facility, cessation of uranium enrichment, a ban on stockpiling nuclear material, and the transfer of enriched uranium to the United States.

Iranian authorities are currently reviewing the proposal, though no formal response has been announced.

The diplomatic push comes against the backdrop of an ongoing Middle East conflict that has drawn in multiple regional actors and intensified scrutiny of Iran’s military and nuclear posture. U.S. officials have framed the proposal as part of a broader effort to reduce hostilities and prevent further destabilization.

Witkoff said the outcome would depend on whether Tehran views the current moment as an opportunity to shift course, adding that discussions remain at a preliminary stage.

The ceasefire came into effect at 2000 local time and is intended to stabilise key areas where clashes and security operations had intensified.

The announcement followed negotiations between Damascus and the SDF after Syrian government forces moved into parts of Hasakah province earlier this week.

Those deployments came amid accusations that Daesh detainees had been released from detention facilities, raising fears of renewed militant activity and prompting swift military responses from the Syrian army.

The new accord aims to halt hostilities while allowing security arrangements to be reviewed.

According to Syrian officials, the ceasefire is designed to create space for dialogue and coordination on security, administration and the transfer of certain facilities to state control.

Army units that had advanced toward strategic locations in the Jazira region are expected to suspend offensive operations during the truce, while maintaining defensive positions to prevent instability or militant infiltration.

The agreement reflects a broader attempt by the Syrian government to reassert authority in northeastern regions long controlled or administered by the SDF, which is backed by Kurdish forces and has played a central role in the fight against Daesh.

Relations between the two sides have fluctuated over the years, ranging from tactical coordination to armed confrontations, depending on shifting political and military circumstances.

In recent days, tensions rose sharply after reports emerged that detainees affiliated with Daesh had been released from a prison in Al-Shaddadi.

Syrian military leaders blamed the SDF for the release, arguing it posed a direct threat to national security. The army responded by deploying units to secure prisons and surrounding areas, triggering fears of a wider confrontation.

The ceasefire announcement suggests that both sides are seeking to prevent further escalation, particularly at a time when regional and international attention remains focused on Syria’s fragile stability.

Analysts say the truce could serve as a confidence-building measure if it leads to concrete steps on coordination, detainee management and civilian protection.

For residents of Hasakah and surrounding towns, the ceasefire offers a temporary respite after days of uncertainty. Civilians had expressed concern over troop movements, checkpoints and the possibility of renewed clashes disrupting daily life.

Local sources say humanitarian access and basic services had also been affected by the recent tensions, underscoring the need for calm.

The Syrian defence ministry said the ceasefire would be monitored closely and warned that any violations would be dealt with firmly.

Officials stressed that the truce does not signal a retreat from the government’s objective of restoring full sovereignty over all Syrian territory, but rather reflects a tactical pause aimed at achieving longer-term stability.

The SDF has not issued a detailed public statement on the terms of the ceasefire, but sources familiar with the talks said the agreement includes commitments to avoid provocative actions and to continue discussions through designated mediators.

Previous accords between Damascus and Kurdish forces have often struggled to hold, breaking down over disagreements on governance, military integration and resource control.

Regional observers note that the four-day duration of the ceasefire suggests it is a short-term measure, possibly intended to test intentions and reduce immediate risks rather than resolve deeper political disputes.

Much will depend on whether talks continue beyond the truce and whether confidence can be rebuilt after recent accusations and deployments.

Internationally, the ceasefire may be viewed as a positive signal amid broader concerns about Syria’s security landscape, including the potential resurgence of Daesh cells and the involvement of external actors.

Any reduction in fighting between Syrian forces and the SDF could help refocus efforts on counterterrorism and humanitarian recovery.

As the ceasefire takes effect, attention will turn to whether it holds on the ground and whether it opens the door to more durable arrangements.

For now, the four-day pause offers a narrow but important window to ease tensions in one of Syria’s most sensitive regions and to prevent a new cycle of conflict from taking hold.

Officials emphasized that the decision reflects a strategic reassessment shaped by evolving realities on the ground and a broader commitment to long-term stability in the Arabian Peninsula.

The UAE clarified that its remaining presence had been limited to specialized counterterrorism personnel working in coordination with international partners, underscoring the narrow and defensive nature of its mission.

By concluding this phase of engagement, Abu Dhabi has signaled confidence in political dialogue and regional cooperation as the most effective tools for addressing Yemen’s complex challenges.

The withdrawal also highlights the UAE’s stated preference for de-escalation, humanitarian support, and institution-building rather than prolonged military involvement.

Observers across the region view the announcement as a constructive gesture that may help recalibrate relationships among Gulf partners while opening space for renewed coordination.

The UAE has consistently framed its Yemen policy around combating extremism, protecting maritime security, and supporting local stabilization efforts aligned with international norms.

Officials stressed that the conclusion of the mission does not diminish the country’s ongoing interest in Yemen’s peace, unity, and economic recovery.

Regional analysts note that the move reflects the maturity of Gulf diplomacy, where strategic differences are increasingly addressed through dialogue rather than confrontation.

By voluntarily ending its remaining deployment, the UAE is reinforcing its image as a pragmatic actor willing to adapt policy in support of broader regional interests.

The decision comes amid renewed focus on political processes in Yemen, with international partners encouraging inclusive talks and confidence-building measures.

UAE leaders have reiterated support for internationally recognized frameworks that prioritize Yemeni-led solutions and respect national sovereignty.

Humanitarian considerations also remain central, with Abu Dhabi continuing to provide aid, development assistance, and reconstruction support to Yemeni communities.

The drawdown aligns with the UAE’s wider foreign policy approach that emphasizes stability, economic cooperation, and conflict prevention across the Middle East.

Gulf cooperation remains a priority, and officials have expressed hope that recent steps will contribute to rebuilding trust and coordination among regional partners.

The UAE’s message has been one of reassurance, stressing that differences among allies need not undermine shared goals of security and prosperity.

By choosing an orderly and transparent withdrawal, the country aims to reduce friction and support a calmer regional environment.

Diplomatic sources suggest that such steps could encourage renewed multilateral engagement focused on ending Yemen’s prolonged crisis.

The UAE has highlighted that peace is best sustained through political compromise, economic opportunity, and regional dialogue rather than extended military deployments.

As regional diplomacy evolves, the withdrawal is being viewed as a forward-looking decision that prioritizes long-term stability over short-term tactical gains.

Recent developments have prompted Thai authorities to review strategic measures, including tighter oversight of fuel exports, as part of broader efforts to protect civilians and reduce the risk of further escalation.

Officials have stressed that any decision regarding energy supplies would be guided by security assessments and regional stability considerations rather than economic pressure alone.

The situation follows renewed clashes in a long-disputed border region, which have unfortunately led to civilian displacement and heightened humanitarian concerns on both sides.

Thai military leaders have underlined that discussions remain preliminary, with no final decisions taken, reflecting a measured and consultative approach to a sensitive regional issue.

Thailand’s energy authorities have confirmed that fuel exports to Cambodia were already limited earlier this year, underscoring that energy policy adjustments are not abrupt reactions but part of an evolving framework.

At the same time, Thai officials have reiterated their commitment to international norms and the protection of civilian life, stating that military operations are focused strictly on security objectives.

Local administrations in affected provinces have introduced temporary safety measures, including curfews, aimed at safeguarding residents and maintaining public order during a volatile period.

Despite the challenges, Thai leaders continue to express openness to dialogue, emphasizing that de-escalation and negotiation remain the preferred long-term solutions.

Regional observers note that Thailand’s approach reflects a balance between asserting sovereignty and avoiding actions that could undermine broader Southeast Asian stability.

The humanitarian impact of the clashes has drawn attention from regional partners, reinforcing the urgency of coordinated relief efforts and diplomatic engagement.

Thai authorities have been working with local agencies to support displaced families, providing shelter, medical assistance, and logistical aid where needed.

Officials have also highlighted the importance of maintaining calm communication with neighboring countries to prevent misunderstandings and further conflict.

International mediation efforts have previously played a role in reducing tensions, and Thailand has signaled its willingness to cooperate with partners seeking to facilitate peace.

Government spokespeople have emphasized that stability along the border is essential not only for national security but also for regional trade, tourism, and cross-border cooperation.

Thailand’s economic planners are mindful that prolonged instability can affect livelihoods, making conflict resolution a shared priority for all parties involved.

From Bangkok’s perspective, ensuring that security measures are proportionate and reversible is key to maintaining credibility and trust in the region.

Analysts suggest that energy policy discussions, including fuel exports, are being framed as precautionary tools rather than punitive actions.

This approach allows Thailand to retain strategic flexibility while signaling seriousness about protecting its territory and citizens.

Public statements from Thai leaders consistently stress that peaceful coexistence with neighbors remains a core objective of foreign policy.

The government has called on all sides to respect ceasefire commitments and prioritize the safety of civilians caught near disputed areas.

As discussions continue at both military and diplomatic levels, Thailand is positioning itself as firm yet constructive in its response.

The emphasis on consultation, restraint, and readiness for dialogue reflects a broader desire to prevent the conflict from widening.

Regional stability in Southeast Asia depends heavily on cooperation, and Thailand has reiterated its support for multilateral engagement.

Looking ahead, officials hope that confidence-building measures can gradually replace confrontation along the border.

The current situation serves as a reminder of the importance of sustained diplomacy in managing historical disputes.

Thailand’s leadership believes that pragmatic decision-making, combined with humanitarian concern, can help steer the situation toward de-escalation.

By keeping communication open and policies transparent, Bangkok aims to contribute to a durable peace framework.

While security considerations remain paramount, the overarching message from Thai authorities is one of responsibility and regional stewardship.

The coming days are expected to bring further discussions focused on calming tensions and restoring normalcy for border communities.

In this context, Thailand’s measured stance reflects both national resolve and a continued commitment to peaceful solutions.