A Ceasefire Is Not Peace!

We must state with confidence that if it weren’t for Iran’s missile capabilities, we would be in a very different situation right now. Therefore, it must be declared explicitly that the only way to stabilize the current situation is to increase Iran’s military strength and capabilities — so that the other side understands that crossing Iran’s red lines will definitely incur a cost.

Following the announcement by the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran about the suspension of Iran’s military operations against the Zionist regime as of 4:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 24, conditional upon the cessation of that regime’s illegal offensive operations, the current state between Iran and Israel entered a unique phase — especially considering that in Araghchi’s tweet about the suspension of military operations, it was clearly stated that, at present, there is no agreement on a ceasefire or operational halt.

In a subsequent statement issued by the Supreme National Security Council — without explicitly using the term "ceasefire" — the Council implicitly confirmed the Foreign Minister’s declared position, while also emphasizing that the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran, without the slightest trust in the words of its enemies, remain trigger-ready to deliver a firm and regrettable response to any aggressive action.

After the suspension of mutual military operations based on the positions outlined above, various debates have emerged in political and media circles within the country. It is essential to approach these discussions from a legal perspective and not allow non-expert or legally uninformed commentary to distort the public discourse. Although military operations between Iran and Israel have ceased for now — and a ceasefire is effectively in place — we must examine what this situation actually represents.

First, it is important to clarify for those who reject the current circumstances by invoking the term “imposed peace,” that the present state does not even qualify as a formal ceasefire, let alone peace — and that there is a vast difference between the two concepts. The distinction between ceasefire and peace is one of the central discussions in international law and international relations.

The basis of a ceasefire (ceasefire/truce) is the temporary suspension of hostilities — not the end of war. It typically serves to allow for prisoner exchanges, the evacuation of civilians, opportunities for negotiations, or the delivery of humanitarian aid. The unresolved nature of the conflict, the continued state of war between the parties, the persistence of fundamental disagreements, the fragility of the situation, and the high likelihood of renewed hostilities — these are all hallmarks of a ceasefire period.

Peace — more precisely, permanent peace — means the official end of war, resolution of the dispute, and normalization of relations. It is formalized through a peace treaty that defines borders, war reparations, reconstruction terms, and other issues of contention. Such a treaty must be signed, ratified, and its documents exchanged by the parties. In short: a ceasefire is a tool to reduce violence, but permanent peace requires political will, complex diplomacy, and compromise.

There are many types of ceasefires — potentially as many as there are conflicts in the world. If we consider the current cessation of fire between Iran and Israel as a ceasefire, it is a special case for which there may be no direct equivalent. It can only be compared with other ceasefires in terms of general aspects such as sustainability, guarantees, and the future conduct of the parties.

Another important point is that ceasefires do not necessarily lead to permanent peace — and when we talk about their temporary nature, that does not mean they are bound to a fixed timeframe. For example, hostilities between North and South Korea ended in 1953, but after 71 years, the two countries remain technically at war.

Another case is Cyprus, where a ceasefire has been in place since 1971 — over 50 years — between the Greek and Turkish sectors, without a peace treaty. In the case of India and Pakistan, multiple ceasefires and peace agreements have occurred. Since 2003, a de facto ceasefire has held along the Line of Control in Kashmir, though it is periodically violated (e.g., in the May 2025 clashes).

Important examples also include the ceasefires and peace agreements between Israel and Arab countries — like the ceasefire after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the 1974 disengagement agreement, which in Egypt’s case led to the Camp David Peace Accords, but in Syria’s case did not lead to peace. Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad, Israel violated even that disengagement agreement and occupied more territory.

Perhaps most notably, Iran and Iraq have technically remained under a ceasefire since Iran accepted UN Security Council Resolution 598 in 1988. Despite extensive ties between the two countries, no permanent peace treaty has ever been signed.

So why don’t ceasefires lead to lasting peace?

The answer lies in mutual distrust, foreign interference, unresolved disputes (borders, resources, etc.), and strategic or geopolitical objectives. Most crucially, in some cases, ceasefires are initiated solely to achieve short-term goals — such as the limited ceasefires between Hamas and Israel for prisoner exchanges, which never evolve into broader agreements because the sides have fundamentally different aims.

The Fragility or Durability of the Iran-Israel Situation

We must acknowledge that after Israel’s June 12 (Khordad 23) military assault and the mutual halt to fighting on June 24 (Tir 3), the military, political, and legal dynamics between the two sides have significantly changed. We are now in a far more complex situation — and it is likely to become even more so.

The most pressing question now is whether the current state of affairs will hold or whether Israel is using the ceasefire to regroup and relaunch its offensive.

Some suggest a peace agreement could formalize the current situation — possibly mediated by the UN or a third country, since Iran does not recognize Israel.

The strongest argument against this idea is that Israel does not honor any agreement — as evidenced by its illegal June 12 attack and its undeclared war on Iran. No document can guarantee Israel’s commitment. Therefore, the only way to maintain stability is to create a strategic balance or equilibrium.

Let us be absolutely clear: what forced the Zionist regime to propose a ceasefire was Iran’s firepower — not international law, political pressure, or the mediation of other countries. Without Iran’s missile capability, we would be in a completely different scenario.

Hence, we must unequivocally state that the only path to solidifying the current situation is to enhance Iran’s military power — so the adversary will understand that crossing red lines will come at a definite cost.

In conclusion: pursuing a ceasefire agreement is like pounding water in a mortar — a fruitless exercise.