This is what has been missing in all the ceasefires since 2025 and in the preparations for a Ukraine-Russia ceasefire.

A militarily credible force does not guarantee a ceasefire

Those who have implemented ceasefires since 2025 and those preparing a ceasefire in the Ukraine-Russia conflict believe that it is the military credibility of their forces that guarantees the ceasefire.

They believe this, and they are wrong. A military force fuels escalation. This is what is currently happening in the Iran-U.S. conflict.

The only known exception is a form of intervention so powerful that it crushes everything in its path. In the case of Lebanon, a Syrian deterrent force intervened in 1976 and was formalized a few years later. It helped restore calm, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for future wars. The Syrians deliberately disarmed most of the militias, except for Hezbollah, which created a problem that remains unresolved in 2026.

A chronological account of what happened and what a monitoring system should have done

Step 1 – The Revolutionary Guards violated the ceasefire signed on June 17 by attacking oil tankers and container ships.
If there had been a system for monitoring, maintaining, and restoring the ceasefire, it would have been agreed that the monitoring system must identify the source and secure an immediate and lasting halt to such violations from the Iranians.
The Americans, knowing that such a system exists, could have waited and allowed the monitoring system to carry out its role in maintaining and restoring the ceasefire. It is normal, in this kind of incident, to need time to identify and neutralize the sources. The Americans could have facilitated the work of the monitoring system by providing the data they had collected on the origin and route taken by the drones or ships that intervened to cause this violation.

But since there is no established monitoring system, the U.S. president decided, unilaterally and without consulting the other side, to take decisive action through airstrikes. He believes his military strength is credible and that the airstrikes he ordered will force the Iranians to stop.

When there is a system for monitoring, maintaining, and restoring, one must be willing to wait without provoking an escalation.

The Americans were the ones who caused the initial escalation.

Step 2—In retaliation for ceasefire violations targeting oil tankers and for the violation of freedom of movement, the U.S. launched airstrikes against Iran, thereby also violating the memorandum of understanding signed on June 17, 2026.
If there had been a system for monitoring, maintaining, and restoring the ceasefire, it would have been agreed that the monitoring system must identify the source and secure from the Americans an immediate and lasting halt to such violations.
LThe Iranians, knowing that such a system exists, could have waited and monitored the monitoring system as it worked to maintain and restore the ceasefire. It is normal, in cases of such incidents, to need time to identify and neutralize the sources. In the case of the bombings, it would have been easy to obtain all the information regarding the origin and targets of those bombings. The Iranians could have facilitated the work of the monitoring system by providing the data they had collected on the bombings observed on their territory.
But since there is no established system for supervision, some Iranians (likely the Revolutionary Guards, without consulting the political leadership) decided unilaterally—without verifying anything with the other side—to launch retaliatory strikes against various U.S. bases. They believe their military strength is credible and that the missiles and drones they have launched will force the Gulf states (and Jordan) to stop the bombings.They have launched a new escalation that overshadows all previous ones, and no one has waited for a ceasefire mechanism to do anything, since there isn’t one. A mechanism that doesn’t exist cannot do something that the warring parties unanimously refuse to do.

Step 3 — Each side blames the other and successively calls into question all the points of agreement in the protocol signed on June 17

• a halt to all traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, ordered by Iran,
• a return to the naval blockade of Iranian ships
• etc.

The gradual escalation has once again turned into a war.

Monitoring, Maintaining, and Restoring

Monitoring involves documenting incidents and taking the necessary steps to prevent a return to a state of war.

Maintaining involves taking the necessary preventive and corrective actions to uphold the ceasefire.

Restoring involves taking the necessary steps to restore the ceasefire. In this case, the warring parties must be persuaded to stop justifying their military actions based on the actions of the other side.

Should we renegotiate a new agreement?

It won’t do any good, since the chaotic governing bodies aren’t quite sure what they want. Furthermore, the signed protocol contains just about everything that will need to be included in a new agreement. What’s missing is the monitoring system for the ceasefire. However, we need to draft a series of implementing guidelines that will clarify points that could lead to misunderstandings.

Create a monitoring system and define implementation notes

Setting up a monitoring system requires establishing a system that operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with designated contact numbers and at least three people on duty at all times. (In another article, it was proposed to install the monitoring system in the part of Oman closest to the Strait of Hormuz. If no building is available, a tent village must be set up with all necessary housing and equipment.)

The implementation notes are supplementary notes to the signed protocol.

Examples :

• Is an attack on a cargo ship or an oil tanker a violation of the ceasefire?
• Is a bombing a violation of the ceasefire?
• Are missiles and drones targeting U.S. bases or the oil monarchies considered violations?
• Does the protocol specify that there is a single shipping route defined solely by Iran?
• You may add other questions, and the common, accepted answers should be noted and will be used later by the monitoring system
• …. etc.

Who will negotiate these implementing notes? It could be Pakistan, Oman, or Qatar… These negotiations must be conducted nonstop as soon as possible.

If necessary, the monitoring system will define and negociate any other implementing note.

If necessary, we’ll add more.

But we will need to establish and implement a system for monitoring, maintaining, and restoring the ceasefire as soon as possible. It is the missing keystonee for any ceasefire.

July 16, 2026 updated on July 17, 2026

Naej DRANER

Architect and coach for any system designed to monitor, maintain, and restore a ceasefire