By Julia Sassaman
From Gaza to Lebanon to Iran, ceasefire agreements meant to halt conflict have been met with continued airstrikes and targeted killings.
Despite brokered ceasefires among Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Gaza and the United States, armed conflict has persisted. As defined by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, a ceasefire is the negotiated suspension of hostilities for a designated period of time in a specified geographic region. Ceasefires are not the same as permanent peace agreements because they do not always require the total end of warfare; however, they seek to reduce its scale. Similar to truces, they create a period for involved parties to focus on negotiations, reassess their opponents, facilitate humanitarian assistance and de-escalate without full-scale war.
Across the region, airstrikes, artillery shelling, ground invasions and rocket fire continue alongside existing ceasefire agreements. Nearly 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip by Israeli military strikes since the Israel-Hamas ceasefire took effect on Oct. 10, 2025. Israel has reportedly violated the ceasefire an estimated 3,201 times since, according to Gaza’s Government Media Office.
On June 3, 2026, the United States mediated a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. The agreement remains contingent on Hezbollah halting further attacks against Israel and withdrawing from the South Litani Sector. As part of its framework, “pilot zones” will be established in Southern Lebanon and controlled by the Lebanese Armed Forces to ensure no armed groups operate within the designated areas. These bilateral negotiations excluded the participation of Hezbollah despite its central role in the conflict, and the group rejected the terms outright. Both Hezbollah and Israel have continued to carry out attacks, leaving the ceasefire on unstable footing.
Experts point to structural and diplomatic flaws in how current ceasefires are constructed and maintained. Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. Middle East peace advisor, has noted that recent ceasefire attempts in the region have lacked clear rules of engagement and proper third-party monitoring. Professor Fawaz Gerges of the London School of Economics’ Department of International Relations argues that loosely defined ceasefires allow states to attack based on their own assessment of security threats and that “the term ‘ceasefire’ no longer really has any kind of operational meaning.” This dynamic was on display on June 7, when Israel struck Beirut’s southern suburbs, citing Hezbollah infrastructure as a threat that warranted offensive action during an agreed-upon cessation of hostilities.
The United States-Iran ceasefire began on April 7, yet it has since been breached by both sides. On June 9, President Donald Trump reaffirmed that the ongoing attacks had not changed the ceasefire’s status. A senior White House official told Politico, “There’s a military bucket and then there’s a negotiation bucket … We have to respond in kind, but at the same time there’s still a deal trying to be negotiated. So, two things can happen at the same time.”
Ceasefires are not defined under international law, which allows their terms to be determined by negotiating parties, including what counts as a violation and what military actions are permitted. The result is that each side can claim the other violated the agreement while arguing its own actions fall within agreed limits. Whether these negotiations bring parties closer to establishing comprehensive peace plans or simply provide temporary relief during continued conflict remains a central and unresolved question.
Julia Sassaman
Julia is a fourth-year student at the University of Michigan studying political science and international studies. She recently studied abroad in Geneva, Switzerland, researching post-conflict tourism and international human rights law. After graduation, she hopes to move to Europe to pursue a career centered on global human rights. In her free time, she enjoys painting, baking, journaling, and reading.