Given history of ceasefires, it’s no surprise US-Iran truce is fraying

The fraying of the ceasefire in the US-Israel war against Iran reflects grim patterns of history. Truces are often doomed because they focus on stopping battle-related violence and rarely begin to address the underlying struggles that ignited hostilities. A pause without a shared common endgame often resets the battlefield as reasons harden for prolonging warfare. Viable political solutions seldom follow and take hold for peace to endure.

Over the past decade, we’ve seen the perils. The Minsk agreements (2014, 2015) failed to resolve the Russia-Ukraine war. The Gaza truces aimed to stop attacks as captives were exchanged. Israel sought the dismantling of Hamas and return of all hostages; Hamas demanded a permanent ceasefire, full Israeli withdrawal and survival. Middle ground was impossible. In the war against Iran, Israel continued bombing Lebanon, claiming the truce didn’t apply there.

The drivers of war are restless and incessant. Both sides must believe cessation best serves their self-interests. That view must be shared widely within. Combatants’ power usually remains roughly symmetrical, and trust is barely tenable. Psychology comes into play; delusion takes hold.