After another 24 hours of rapidly-unfolding developments, we thought it was worth taking another look at where things stand. Donald Trump announced a ceasefire agreement yesterday between Iran and Israel, and after a shaky start (with both sides accusing the other of breaking the ceasefire) it seems to be holding for now. It also seems that Iran will not retaliate further against the United States, after a rather pro forma attack on a U.S. base in Qatar. And today, details leaked of an intelligence assessment that shows the result of the American attack on Iran's nuclear program may not have been "obliteration" (as Trump and others have claimed), but rather just "set back by months."

Taken as a whole, the news is largely good. Trump's gamble -- that Iran wouldn't opt for massive retaliation against the U.S. -- seems to have paid off. Of course, it is still rather early to completely relax, as Iran still has a number of ways it could retaliate in the future (cyberattacks, assassination attempts, terrorist attacks), but the Iranian regime is in an awfully weak position overall. Their leaders want (above all else) to retain their own domestic power to continue their theocratic (and autocratic) rule over the country, and this sense of self-preservation seems to be what is driving them to the negotiating table.

Iran was refusing to enter into any negotiations with Israel while Israel was still bombing them (which is understandable), but now that the ceasefire has taken hold it could open the door to what would amount to a trilateral negotiation, with Iran on one side of the table and the U.S. and Israel on the other.

As for that damage assessment, here is how the Washington Post is reporting it:

An initial U.S. intelligence report assesses that airstrikes ordered by President Donald Trump against Iran's nuclear facilities set Tehran's program back by months but did not eliminate it, contradicting claims by Trump and his top aides about the mission's success, according to two people familiar with the report.

The classified report by the Defense Intelligence Agency is based on the Pentagon's early bomb damage assessment of the strikes on nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan using earth-penetrating munitions carried by B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles launched from submarines.

It assesses that the strikes failed to destroy the core components of Iran's nuclear program and likely set it back by only a number of months, one of the people said.

The latest intelligence also indicates that Iran moved multiple batches of its highly-enriched uranium out of the nuclear sites before the strikes occurred and that the uranium stockpiles were unaffected, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence matters.

A second person familiar with the initial DIA report who also spoke on the condition of anonymity said it concludes that some of Iran's centrifuges, used to enrich uranium that could be used in a nuclear weapon, remain intact.

If all this is true, it sounds like the attack only did some fairly minimal damage -- at least to the program as a whole. What was not revealed in the leak of this assessment was what the analysts concluded about the damage to the underground sites that the bunker-buster bombs hit. This may not be fully known until some sort of deal with Iran is reached that allows international atomic energy inspectors to visit the two underground sites that were hit. These munitions have never been used before in actual combat, so nobody really knows how successful they turned out to be. The site at Fordow was reportedly buried 300 feet deep, and the penetrator bombs are only theoretically supposed to be able to go 200 feet deep before they explode. Multiple bombs on a single point were used to "dig deeper," but again, nobody really knows if this worked or not.

Also, Iran announced (the day before Israel started bombing them) that it was building another underground centrifuge site under a different mountain -- one that will be a lot deeper than the ones the U.S. just hit. If the assessment is correct -- that Iran moved its enriched uranium and at least some of its centrifuges from the targeted sites before they were attacked, then they will be able to get their nuclear program back up and running fairly quickly, once they have a new facility to house it in.

We will probably know more about this assessment fairly soon, although not quite as soon as was planned, as the article points out:

The Trump administration scheduled, and then postponed, Iran briefings for House members on Tuesday.

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Illinois), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, told The Washington Post there is widespread belief in Congress that the embarrassing content of the assessment is the reason why the Trump administration decided to delay the classified briefing. "They don't delay briefings that have good news," Quigley said.

So what will this all mean? That's a good question. The undeniable good news in all of this is that Iran now seems willing to enter into negotiations. Both Israel and the U.S. may take a very hard line in these negotiations, seeing as how Iran is not exactly negotiating from a position of strength. Their air defenses have been destroyed and they are running out of their stockpiles of missiles, so restarting the war with Israel (and possibly the U.S.) isn't exactly an attractive option to Iran right now. But it may take a lot of time -- or wind up being impossible -- for Iran to agree to all the things that Israel and the U.S. are seeking. The hard line here is "no nuclear program, period" -- an end to Iran enriching uranium and having their continued use of nuclear reactors for peaceful civilian energy purposes constrained by having the nuclear "fuel" produced by a third country (Russia, perhaps). The other thing Israel and the U.S. will be seeking is an end to all military support of Iran's regional proxies -- Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and others. Achieving this would move the Middle East a lot closer to a lasting peace, but Iran may refuse to even negotiate on this point.

At any rate, a sense of very cautious optimism seems warranted for now. If the bombs and missile attacks have truly stopped and negotiations begin, then it will be a very positive development. If Iran does not retaliate against America further, then Trump's military gamble will have paid off. It's too early to predict the ultimate outcome, but for now things certainly seem to be working out a lot better than any of the "worst case" scenarios. Which, as we said, is good news indeed.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant