The announcement of a two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran — with Israel signaling its alignment — has not ended the conflict. But it has interrupted its momentum. That, in the current climate, is no small thing.

The truce follows weeks of escalating strikes, proxy engagements and mounting civilian and infrastructure damage across the Middle East. Oil markets have wobbled, shipping in the region has been disrupted, and insurers have priced in risk that would have seemed excessive only months ago. The world economy, already fragile, has been forced to absorb yet another shock — this time from a conflict that should not have happened.

The origins of this conflict are not obscure. This was a conflict of choice, not necessity. As China's ambassador to the United Nations, Fu Cong, put it, the military strikes launched by the US and Israel came without authorization from the UN Security Council and while negotiations with Tehran were still underway. The military strikes' lack of legitimacy will not be rescued by the manner in which the conflict ends.

The ceasefire, then, represents a diplomatic breakthrough born from a recognition of the catastrophic consequences if the conflict continues. The costs of the conflict are also measured in credibility. Trust is in short supply between the belligerents. Tehran seems to have little reason to take the other side's assurances at face value when military action arrived in the middle of earlier talks. Nor is either side likely to forget the parallel war of information that has accompanied the missiles.

This is what makes the next fortnight so consequential. A ceasefire can be a bridge to negotiation, or it can be a lull before escalation. There is a long history, in the Middle East and beyond, of the latter. The temptation to use the interval to regroup, rearm and refine targeting will be strong if a party still believes it will benefit from chaos.

The obstacles to meaningful talks are formidable. The terms under discussion are, by design, demanding. Each side has set out positions that leave little room for compromise.

More problematic still are the objectives that seem unlikely to be negotiable. Washington and Tel Aviv have shown little inclination to abandon ambitions that extend beyond immediate security concerns, including the reshaping of Iran's political order and the strategic leverage that comes with energy control. Tehran, for its part, wants security guarantees and full sovereignty.

Nor is the theater of conflict neatly contained. Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire, as Tel Aviv claimed, and Israeli military operations in that country continue. And the Middle East has a habit of turning localized tensions into regional crises.

Against this backdrop, the role of mediators becomes more significant. China's approach has been to emphasize the cessation of hostilities and a return to dialogue. Beijing's diplomacy has been active and responsible. China's foreign minister has made 26 phone calls with parties including Iran, Israel, Russia and the Gulf states since the outbreak of the conflict, and its special envoy on the Middle East issue traveled to the region in intensive mediation efforts.

Together with Pakistan, China has set out a five-point initiative that is de facto a checklist of necessities: stop the fighting, start talks, protect civilians and infrastructure, secure shipping lanes, and anchor the process in the UN Charter.

It is grounded in a sober reading of the situation. The Strait of Hormuz remains a choke point for global energy, and its disruption has implications far beyond the Gulf. The debate in the UN Security Council over how to address the issue — reflected in competing draft resolutions — has exposed familiar divisions. Yet it has also underlined a basic point: measures that appear to legitimize further use of force risk deepening the crisis they are meant to resolve.

The international community has a stake in ensuring that the current pause does not go to waste. The mediation efforts and the proposed peace talks in Pakistan should be supported.

There is, finally, the question of what lessons are drawn from the past few weeks. The economic fallout alone should give pause: energy markets rattled, supply chains strained and investor confidence dented. For a global economy already navigating multiple uncertainties, the absurdity of compounding them with a conflict that should not have happened is hard to defend.

The ceasefire offers a narrow window. It is not peace, but it is an opportunity. Whether it becomes anything more will depend on choices made in the coming days — choices that, if misjudged, could render the recent respite little more than an intermission in a much longer and more damaging crisis.