After nearly two weeks of relentless escalation, Iran and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire. The truce, mediated with Qatar’s assistance and aggressively claimed by Donald Trump as a diplomatic coup, marks a temporary halt in a conflict that brought the region to the brink. But while the bombing has paused, the underlying drivers of confrontation remain not only unresolved but, in some cases, further entrenched.
This ceasefire did not emerge from negotiation, let alone reconciliation. It was driven by exhaustion, diplomatic pressure, and the recognition that neither side would emerge with a strategic victory. Iran, after absorbing coordinated U.S.-Israeli strikes on its nuclear facilities, retaliated in kind, launching missiles at Israeli cities and U.S. bases in the Gulf. Israel, already overstretched in Gaza, was forced into a reactive posture. And the United States, despite its role in triggering the escalation, scrambled to prevent a regional cascade it could not control.
Henceforth, Trump’s efforts to frame the ceasefire as a personal triumph are not only premature but dangerously misleading. The conditions that led to this war–Iran’s disputed nuclear programme, Israel’s doctrine of pre-emptive force, and Washington’s unilateralism– remain intact. There is no new framework. No verification regime. No diplomatic track robust enough to contain the next spiral.
Pakistan’s position during this crisis has been clear and legally sound. The Foreign Office condemned the initial strikes on Iran as violations of international law and called for immediate restraint on all sides. It rightly reaffirmed Iran’s right to self-defence under the UN Charter, while urging a return to diplomacy. No one in their right mind would criticise us for fence-sitting. What Pakistan did was aggressively defend the principles the region has repeatedly seen violated: sovereignty, restraint, and non-intervention. matters far more than the ceasefire itself. The UN Security Council cannot allow this crisis to fade without a resolution that formalises the truce and creates space for structured diplomacy. Regional players, including Pakistan, must reinforce the message that future violations will isolate, not vindicate, those who pursue unilateral force. And sooner or later, Washington would have to reckon with the fact that instability grows in the vacuum of abandoned agreements and selective enforcement of international norms.
The only actor to have strengthened his position is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has used this war to rally domestic support and deflect from internal legal and political crises. But the region has no appetite for another war, nor can it afford one. The ceasefire must hold but holding it will require more than signatures. It demands strategy, law, and sustained international pressure. Otherwise, the next eruption is only a miscalculation away.
