A ceasefire suggests a simple cessation of fighting followed by negotiations, allowing civilians time to recover.
This reality does not match the volatile situation in the Mideast, where combat continues despite announced ceasefire agreements and declarations of victory by President Donald Trump.
Israel is currently conducting daily attacks on Gaza. The agreement in Lebanon functions as a ceasefire in name only. Regarding Iran, low-level discussions are proceeding in Qatar this week under a 60-day deadline, which remains distant from a peace accord. Regional residents, analysts, and journalists are increasingly challenging the characterization of the conflict as a "ceasefire."
They point out that incidents like shooting and periodic closures of the Strait of Hormuz have not ceased for extended periods.
Fawaz A. Gerges, an international relations professor at the London School of Economics and Political Science, stated, “There is no ceasefire between the United States and Iran. Iran has zero trust in the Trump administration, so they are making the U.S. fulfill its obligations step by step. This tells me we are living in a new era where the ceasefire no longer really means what it used to.”
Ceasefires Do Not Necessarily Halt Shooting
As old as conflict itself, ceasefires represent a formal agreement to pause hostilities. Also known as a truce, such an arrangement is generally understood as a period between war and peace during which combatants agree to halt fighting while negotiations occur.
Furthermore, a truce encompasses whatever the negotiators permit so long as no party withdraws from discussions. Breaches are common and have been strategically employed to establish a standard of acceptable, lower-level hostilities in a tit-for-tat manner during this sensitive period. The intent is to allow for accidents, miscommunications, or misunderstandings that participants agree should not derail talks.
Some ceasefires evolve into long-term peace deals capable of enduring violations without a formal treaty. An example is the Korean Armistice Agreement, which stopped fighting in the Korean War on July 27, 1953.
No formal treaty was ever signed, meaning the peninsula technically remains at war. Nevertheless, the agreement halted hostilities and established the DMZ, a buffer zone measuring 4,000 meters (2.5 miles) between North and South Korea. Breaches have been frequent over the years.
In contrast, negotiators in the Mideast are just beginning their efforts, with midterm U.S. elections approaching and Trump aiming to conclude the unpopular war.
Two U.S. envoys arrived in Qatar on Tuesday for talks with mediators concerning an initial deal to end the war in Iran. The visit by Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special Mideast envoy, and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, followed a weekend of crossfire in the Persian Gulf over efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping traffic.
Defining a Ceasefire in 2026 Is Complex
Ceasefire terms can range from vague to highly specific. They may address troop withdrawals, cessation of hostilities, limitations on fighting locations, humanitarian aid, buffer zones, and timing. Violence levels have a good chance of decreasing during a declared ceasefire.
Technically, ceasefires of varying durations exist between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and between the United States and Iran. However, this has not resulted in an end to fighting.
Trump characterized it as relative, telling reporters last month, “It’s a different part of the world, you know. I’d say in that part, a ceasefire is when you’re shooting in a more moderate manner.”
According to analyst Daniel Sobelman of Hebrew University in Jerusalem, these agreements have not stopped fighting but have instead “paved the way for a new conflict in which the various parties are fighting over the postwar strategic reality and the acceptable rules of the game.”
Sobelman, director of the graduate program in international security and diplomacy, noted that in the Mideast, “‘so-called ‘rules’ emerge through a process of violent bargaining over what is acceptable and what is a violation.’” This explains the discrepancy between the calm many anticipate from a ceasefire and near-daily reports of ongoing fighting.
Sobelman mentioned via email that considering the U.S. and Iran have exchanged fire multiple times since the ceasefire took effect, “nonetheless the war has not erupted again because these upticks in violence are limited in time and scope.”
Institutions, including the United Nations, the U.S. Department of Defense, and news organizations like The Associated Press, generally define ceasefires as political tools intended to reduce conflict pressure while sides agree to dialogue.
On the U.S.-Iran conflict, the AP advised its writers on June 10 to include ground details, suggesting qualifying the deal with terms such as “tenuous” and referring to a “‘ceasefire deal,’ which speaks to the political process and not just the military/security dynamic.”
During a weekend flare-up of regional fighting, Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., used more vivid language when asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if the war was truly over, describing the ceasefire talks as “almost just a mop-up operation.” He then detailed some terms: “We have to press them if they strike us. We have to strike them back by 10.”
He added, “This is a ceasefire, and yeah, they broke the ceasefire.”
Ceasefires Are Changing Character
On the ground in the region, it often feels like war, leading to growing resistance from some groups against labeling this period anything else.
Kathy Gannon, who reported for the AP from Pakistan and Afghanistan for 35 years before retiring, wrote on Substack on June 7 that “It is not a ceasefire when it applies only to Hezbollah, Hamas or Iran, but not to Israel and the United States.”
Much of the opposition to using the term stems from Israel's continued attacks in Lebanon and Gaza despite ceasefires. Israeli leaders reference deals and agreements but emphasize the country’s right to act against what they deem violations and existential threats.
H.A. Hellyer, senior associate fellow of Middle Eastern studies and geopolitics at the Royal United Services Institute and the Center for American Progress, stated, “Continued Israeli strikes are treated as compatible with the truce; comparable actions by others are treated as its collapse. A word that once implied mutual restraint now serves to legitimize profoundly unequal restraint.”
Israel continues to occupy large areas of southern Lebanon while engaging Hezbollah fighters, resulting in civilian casualties and infrastructure damage. Since March, when Hezbollah fired at Israel two days after the Iran war began, over 4,000 people in Lebanon have been killed in Israeli strikes. On the Israeli side, thirty-eight soldiers and three civilians have died.
In Gaza, where Israeli strikes have not truly ended since the October ceasefire agreement with Hamas, a ceasefire looks like this: on Monday, Israeli strikes in southern and central Gaza killed at least eight people, including two children, and wounded at least 20 others, according to health officials and emergency services.
Palestinian authorities report that more than 1,000 people in Gaza have been killed since the Israel-Hamas ceasefire in October.