When is a ceasefire a ceasefire? Iran and Israel put it to the test

After nearly two weeks of airstrikes, missile attacks, and rising regional tensions, the US announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran late Monday night.

President Donald Trump declared the war over, hailing what he called a "complete and total ceasefire", declaring "Complete and Total CEASEFIRE … for 12 hours, at which point the war will be considered ENDED... Please do not violate it!"

Within hours, the truce showed signs of cracking, as Israeli forces reported intercepting missiles over their airspace early Tuesday.

Tehran denied responsibility, while Israeli officials accused Iran of breaking the deal and vowed to retaliate.

Israel's military reported intercepting Iranian missiles over its airspace early on Tuesday, but Tehran denied firing any missiles after the ceasefire’s start.

Meanwhile, Israeli forces declared the ceasefire violated and vowed to strike back, claiming that their military had achieved its objectives, as the US urged Israel to desist from retaliation.

A cabinet meeting on Monday set the stage, with Netanyahu arguing that Israel had "removed existential threats" via Operation "People Like Lions", and had succeeded in destroying nuclear infrastructure and missile assets, downing key commanders and claiming total air superiority over Tehran.

Iranian officials, including Foreign Minister Araghchi, downplayed the ceasefire. He said that Iran would cease operations if Israel stopped its "illegal aggression" by 4 am Tehran time. State media flagged a ceasefire but pointed to further proof pending in the coming hours.

Trump said the "complete and total ceasefire" would end the so-called "12 Day War", and he branded as a diplomatic victory, but the conflicting reports and the absence of a formal agreement left the world uncertain about whether the conflict had truly ended or simply entered a new phase of hostilities.

When is a ceasefire a ceasefire?

Democrats at the White House worked with Qatar to mediate the deal, according to Reuters. Trump and VP Vance are said to have spoken with the Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, who passed the proposal along to Iranian leaders.

However, leaks to Fars News initially dismissed Trump's announcement as disinformation, a smokescreen to cover US embarrassment over the Al‑Udeid strike.

International law expert and human rights scholar Neve Gordon told The New Arab that "there is no single treaty or legal instrument that comprehensively defines or governs ceasefires". 

Instead, ceasefires operate within a patchwork of customary principles. "There is a prohibition on misusing a ceasefire to launch surprise attacks, since that would amount to perfidy, which is illegal. Also, violating a ceasefire may be seen as a breach of customary norms of good faith and military conduct."  

In this case, there was no signed agreement, no public terms or monitoring mechanism, but only verbal signals and political declarations. 

"It is unclear what was agreed, if anything, about this ceasefire, since all I have seen so far is an 'executive order' by President Trump demanding the two sides to cease fire," Gordon added.

"I do know that Trump talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu and that Qatari officials talked with their Iranian counterparts as a go-between with the USA, but what was agreed is not clear."

According to the analyst, the legality of the preceding attacks by both Israel and the US is deeply questionable. 

"Both Israel and the US attacks on Iran were in violation of UN Charter Article 51, which allows state parties to engage in war only as an act of self-defence. This also entails that if a state party breaks a ceasefire and does so not as an act of self-defence, then irrespective of who brokered the ceasefire, it would be a violation of international law," he said. 

Iran still standing 

Despite widespread bombing across Iran, its nuclear infrastructure remains largely intact. According to intelligence assessments, Iran relocated its most sensitive materials, including enriched uranium, away from targeted facilities like Fordow before US strikes hit.

Ori Goldberg, an Israeli political commentator and former academic, told TNA: "It has shown that the regime is more stable than initially thought and has won negotiations with the US and the rest of the Western powers. Iran emerged from the war bruised and bombed, suffering hundreds of casualties and real damage… but the Islamic Republic did not crumble, even when facing a massive Israeli force."

Goldberg added that everyone has an interest in a ceasefire, especially Iran and the US, believing that the truce would hold and negotiations would resume.

On Tuesday, Iran said that it was ready to return to negotiations with the US. But even as he appeared to express willingness to revisit nuclear talks derailed by Israel's surprise attack, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said his country would continue to "assert its legitimate rights" to the peaceful use of atomic power.

A pause or a turning point?

Israel has framed its campaign as a success, claiming to have eliminated "existential threats” and neutralised Iran’s ability to project power. But experts question the long-term strategic impact.

"Israel defines victory as having the ability to attack Iran," Goldberg said. "But Israeli attempts to destabilise enemy regimes by assassinating military leaders have consistently failed. This strategy is based on the belief that leadership decapitation can collapse a regime, but history shows otherwise."

Goldberg pointed out that Iran, despite taking heavy blows, was powerful enough to convince Trump to warn Israel not to attack after the ceasefire appeared to be violated.

With no monitoring body, no written deal, and no third-party oversight, experts note that the ceasefire may be less a political agreement than a mutual calculation of exhaustion. Iran suffered real damage but preserved its core capabilities, Israel declared victory, backed by US airpower.

Trump, heading into international talks, secured a temporary calm that he could frame as a win, but the absence of trust or structure makes the ceasefire fragile.

Goldberg said: "Iran has once again followed a familiar path, it emerged as it prefers to emerge, still standing, and with potential for the future."

As for Israel, he added: "It tried to force collapse through force, but what it gained was the freedom to strike. That, to Israel, is what victory looks like."