In current ceasefires, the main shortcoming is the lack of a system to monitor and enforce the ceasefire.
Take, for example, the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran signed on June 17, 2026: even the slightest misstep escalated into a conflict that led to the agreement’s non-implementation and mutual accusations that the other side was solely responsible for its breakdown.
Is it naive to believe that there will never be an incident?
The disproportionate reactions of the United States and Iran to the initial missteps that followed the June 17 agreement are perplexing. To be outraged by a misstep reveals a lack of understanding of the issue. It is very rare for a ceasefire to proceed without any incidents, especially during the first few weeks, and every effort must be made to resolve these incidents without resorting to military action. In the case of this agreement, each side felt it had a duty to respond militarily with force, which had the opposite effect of what was intended. Rather than restraining the adversary, this enraged them to the point of prompting further escalations until the ceasefire was nothing more than a memory.
A system for monitoring and maintaining the ceasefire
Regardless of the agreement between the United States and Iran, a system for monitoring and enforcing the ceasefire is necessary. The June 17 agreement did not include any such provision.
What should its role be? To handle, through non-military means, any incidents that may arise. This means having a system that operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As soon as an incident is reported, its details must be confirmed, and a solution must be found without resorting to the military forces on the ground.
Let’s imagine there are specific navigation rules in the Strait of Hormuz. If a ship fails to comply with them, it will be considered an incident. If one of the parties launches a military operation against that ship, it will be a violation of the ceasefire. What should have been done is for the ceasefire monitoring and enforcement system to contact the vessel by radio; if there was no response, a patrol boat would have been sent to the vessel, asked to board it to remind the crew of the traffic rules, and remained with the vessel’s captain until he complied with the applicable rules.
But the June 17 agreement did not provide for any rules of navigation other than freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. It was in the name of nonexistent rules that missiles were fired at ships that were not complying with rules that had not been defined.
The monitoring system should intervene in any incident and resolve it peacefully. We must therefore define the system for monitoring and enforcing the ceasefire and provide it with the necessary resources. In this case, Iranian and U.S. military units cannot act as the monitoring system. Other actors are therefore needed, but there must be military and political representatives from each side who are permanently present within the system for monitoring and enforcing the ceasefire.
Is a new agreement needed?
Yes and no. Yes, because if the agreement had really been good, the parties to the conflict would have made an effort to implement it. No, because the agreement covered the essentials, and any agreement will contain similar provisions. But what’s missing is a monitoring system, a timeline for implementing the June 17 agreement, and a way to clear up all ambiguities. If they negotiate a new agreement, the problem will be the same: without a monitoring system, they’ll just repeat the same pattern. Mutual distrust is so deep that even the slightest incident triggers a military escalation that brings the agreement to an end.
September 20, 2026
Naej DRANER