I would like to see Trump, or a senior member of his cabinet, to explicitly acknowledge and agree to adhere to the 10 points of the terms that Iran laid out.
If those terms are favorable to Iran, you won't get that. This administration does not believe that it owes the American people an ounce of honesty. They may hold Iran's 10 points to keep the peace but tell Americans that Iran accepted America's 15 points to gain popularity at home.
Instead of reading tea leaves about what they "might" believe, let's actually wait to see what the US government is explicitly willing to abide by.
We're making do with what we have, right? Otherwise the entire practice of China military-watching as well as following the development of global events can be summed up with "wait and see."
I think the bolded part contradicts the rest of your post.
It does not. "It's best to wait and see" is because hindsight is always better than foresight, but it doesn't mean foresight is pointless. That "They'll be back to fighting if they didn't agree to the same things" is downstream from whether they agreed to the same things, which is the crux of the conversation.
The only correct position to take right now is to wait and see if this thing falls apart due to miscommunication and misunderstanding.
I doubt there's miscommunication as that would mean that someone took 10 points issued by Iran, edited them into something else, then handed them to the US. However, this thing can fall apart for several other reasons, primarily from America's habit of sneaking attacks negotiations, but also for other reasons like Israeli meddling or USA/Israel seeing Iran use this time too well to reprepare for conflict.
Already there are contradictory noises as to whether Iran will have the ability to impose tolls on the Strait of Hormuz and their ability to retain enrichment capability.
I think those stem from differences between honest reporting and reporting that wants to make the US look better.
There is no basis for us to try to eke out a "it seems like they have an understanding because if they signed the same paper with the same 10 points" --- instead the baseline assumption should be "let's see if they can prove that they agreed to the same terms to begin with".
The baseline is that the US and Iran agreed to a 2 week ceasefire because they agreed to 10 terms.
In summary,
1. It would be very strange for 10 points to morph into 10 different points going from Iran to the US.
2. Why are there conflicts in media as to the specific arrangement? I think those stem from differences between honest reporting and reporting that wants to make the US look better.
3. "let's see if they can prove that they agreed to the same terms to begin with" If they go back to war, it wouldn't prove that there was a misunderstanding as to what the 10 points are because a) America has a habit of sneaking attacks during negotiations, b) Israel could meddle with false flags or by breaking the ceasefire and dragging the US into conflict again, c) USA/Israel seeing Iran use this time too well to reprepare for conflict, d) other reasons stemming from distrust and lack of honor.
