Now that a ceasefire between Iran and Israel has gone into effect following 12 days of war, it’s a good time to clarify exactly what a ceasefire is—and isn’t.
It’s also the right time to consider terms like “regime change” and “army.” Looking at what these terms actually mean is a way of understanding why the outrage, praise, and “expert” analysis are premature, overstated, or just plain silly.
A ceasefire is a temporary halt in hostilities. That’s all. It’s meant to lead to other steps—some military, some diplomatic. As a temporary place-saver, it’s prone to violations by one side or both. Often, the ceasefire does not take hold immediately. Sometimes it doesn’t take hold at all and needs to be renegotiated into another ceasefire.
Israel has lived through numerous ceasefires. Sometimes they hold for years. Sometimes they hold for minutes.
A ceasefire is not a truce, much less a peace treaty. Optimists hope that ceasefires can lead to one or both, but realists accept the fact, proven by history, that more ceasefires eventually break down than lead to peace.
The most painful of Israel’s sorry experiences with ceasefires broken by the other side happened on October 7, 2023. There was a ceasefire in effect with Hamas in Gaza for years before Hamas sent thousands of its terrorists across the border and murdered, raped, and burned 1,200 Israelis, mostly civilians. That started the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, which is still going on.
In contrast, a truce is a formal agreement between two warring parties, putting an end to their hostilities, but without making peace. Israel lived with a truce on its borders with Egypt and Jordan for decades before achieving peace—with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
A peace treaty is a permanent arrangement agreed to and ratified by two warring parties, ending the state of war, establishing diplomatic and trade relations, and often opening borders for tourism.
So Israel and Iran are in just the first stage of this process. It doesn’t go beyond stopping hostilities temporarily. Going ballistic (pun intended) over Iran’s firing of two missiles and a pinpoint Israeli attack in retaliation shortly after the ceasefire went into effect does not mean that the ceasefire is over, or (my favorite) “fragile.” Ceasefires are, by definition, fragile. Ceasefires develop over time, some into renewed fighting, a few into truces and even peace treaties, and others only into extended ceasefires.
The fate of the Israel-Iran ceasefire depends on diplomatic follow-up. That means some form of agreement between the two sides, directly or indirectly. Israeli pundits are hard at work listing demands for an agreement. That’s the easy part. The hard part is boiling everything down to what the two sides can agree on. If there is no common ground, then the “fragile” ceasefire can continue, or it might break down into another round of fighting.
At this stage, the main focus is on the military. Israel’s air force achieved outstanding successes, decapitating the Iranian military, destroying key military and nuclear sites, and setting the table for the US to send in its heavy bombers and cruise missiles to try to finish off key Iranian nuclear development centers.
The reaction to American involvement was staggeringly different on the two sides of the ocean. Israelis welcomed it, while many Americans, including elected representatives on both sides of the political spectrum, blasted it as contrary to a resolution requiring the president to consult Congress, alongside fear that the US would be dragged into another extended Mideast war.
Let’s face it. Israelis and Americans, as a whole, have different views of their military.
Israelis, many of whom serve in the military for three years or more and do annual active reserve duty—and, these days, monthslong service in Gaza—recognize their military as a fighting force that goes into action to protect its citizens.
It appears that many Americans believe their forces are meant only to have a “presence,” as opposed to actually fighting. That might explain the curious decision to move American troops, ships, and planes out of their Mideast bases for fear of an Iranian counterattack. What message does that send? In this space [2] a few days ago, I wrote of the American phobia over getting involved in Mideast conflicts because of misguided wars in the past, as opposed to the fully justified war this time.
If the US is afraid of getting army boots dirty, or, more seriously, taking some casualties in a legitimate military operation, then its army is a waste of time and money.
After absorbing dozens of direct hits from heavy Iranian missiles that killed and injured hundreds of civilians and caused serious damage, most Israelis were pleased to see the conflict end. Some, however, criticized their government for not pressing ahead to depose the fanatical Islamist Iranian regime. That criticism was also heard in the US.
Both the US and Israel have had bitter experiences with such “regime change.” Israel tried to impose a friendly government in Lebanon in the 1980s, only to see it blow up, literally, in its face. The US tried to reorder the government of Iraq, but only aggravated societal divisions and effectively turned over parts of the country to Iran.
The lesson is clear—regime change must come from within. If imposed by either the US or Israel, Iranians will likely come together and oppose it, even violently. If, on the other hand, the weakening of the fanatical Iranian regime by Israeli and American military action strengthens and emboldens the large numbers of Iranians who despise the Islamists, that could lead to a revolution.
That’s the only way regime change can succeed. If it does, then the Israel-Iran ceasefire could lead to a truce, and if we allow ourselves to dream, a peace treaty.