If we were to use an image to describe what needs to be done to maintain the ceasefire, the best analogy would be that of a fire and firefighters.

It is clear that, in the case of a fire, the time and resources deployed between the start of the fire and its spread will determine the ability to prevent the fire from spreading.

If 24 hours pass between the start of a fire and the deployment of firefighting resources, the fire is sure to be out of control by then.

Ceasefire enforcement systems almost never intervene within 24 hours of an incident.

Among the factors that render ceasefire enforcement ineffective are:

• the absence of any system for monitoring and enforcing the ceasefire, as in the case of the June 17, 2026, protocol between Iran and the United States,
• the system’s lack of responsiveness (it may be defined in theory but lack any dedicated resources),
• the security culture among leaders and the military. This culture is often weak, and aside from asserting that striking hard will force the other side to back down, few stakeholders dare to admit that a military response marks the beginning of escalation rather than de-escalation,
• Ceasefire monitoring systems are often passive: a few observers are deployed, but there are no plans to take any action based on their observations—or at least not within the following hours,
• to influence events, close coordination is required both at the political and diplomatic levels and with the combat command structures. Often, the negotiating team is recognized but is never immediately available, and there is no coordination with the military command structures,
• the resources allocated to a system for monitoring and enforcing the ceasefire are too limited or inadequate.

There are many examples of inadequate ceasefire monitoring and enforcement systems:

• The SMM (OSCE Special Monitoring Mission in Ukraine from 2014 to 2022) was a completely passive monitoring system, with a tracking and negotiation mechanism that could only be activated by the current OSCE Chairmanship. Response times were measured in weeks and months. There was an attempt to integrate military chains of command, but this turned into a competing rather than a complementary body.
• The ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in October 2025 lacks a permanently operational monitoring and enforcement system. According to Israel, “maintenance” means bombing and maintaining constant tension. The result: thousands of dead and wounded after the ceasefire date,
• The ceasefire in southern Lebanon. Theoretically, UNIFIL plays a passive observation role. UNIFIL does not react in real time and is not linked to any diplomatic coordination. It is incapable of exerting any influence whatsoever on the combatant leaderships,
• The June 17 ceasefire between the United States and Iran. There is no system for monitoring, enforcing, or restoring the ceasefire. There is no permanent monitoring system, nor any diplomatic or military coordination that can be activated in response to each incident. Furthermore, each side is convinced of its military superiority and believes that all it takes is to strike a little harder to make it stop. The result: a new war

In short, regarding the analogy between a ceasefire and a fire, the parties involved believe that to put out the fire, one must fan the flames (escalation) and naively wait for the other side to stop first.

The result:

• The United States has not demonstrated its ability to ensure the free flow of shipping. It has not succeeded in doing so, and I do not believe it will succeed.
• Iran has failed to understand that the more time passes, the less important the Strait of Hormuz will become. The United Arab Emirates has decided to do everything in its power to ensure that there is no longer any maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia will step up its efforts to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The same goes for Iraq. In two years, traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will have been cut at least in half and will no longer have any international significance. Iran will be left with an empty shell and a goose that lays golden eggs—killed by the Revolutionary Guards. They’re puffing themselves up today, but they’ll be the losers in the long run.

Often, the goals of war are never achieved. It is likely that neither the United States nor Iran will achieve their objectives, and both will be losers in the long run. All of this is because there is no system in place to monitor and enforce the ceasefire. The slightest incident triggers an escalation leading to a new war.

Restoring the ceasefire? That’s the hardest part and would require committed actors, either at the international level or in the Persian Gulf region. According to my information, neither side has the necessary motivation beyond letting the new war fester while hoping for a magical military lull. That’s their prerogative!

July 18, 2026

Naej DRANER (naej.draner@gmail.com)