{"id":211774,"date":"2026-07-18T04:32:17","date_gmt":"2026-07-18T04:32:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/211774\/"},"modified":"2026-07-18T04:32:17","modified_gmt":"2026-07-18T04:32:17","slug":"how-much-shooting-does-it-take-to-end-a-ceasefire","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/211774\/","title":{"rendered":"How much shooting does it take to end a \u2018ceasefire\u2019?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n Last week, President Donald Trump declared<\/a> that the \u201cceasefire\u201d with Iran was \u201cOVER,\u201d as US forces carried out consecutive nights of strikes against Iran.\n <\/p>\n

\n Trump had originally announced the ceasefire in early April, just hours after threatening that \u201ca whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.\u201d After announcing it would last for two weeks, he went on to extend it. But in the weeks that followed, and even after the US and Iran signed a \u201cmemorandum of understanding<\/a>\u201d that kicked off a 60-day period of negotiations to end the war, the firing did not cease. As the US and Iran continued to exchange back-and-forth attacks, Trump insisted the ceasefire remained in effect \u2014 until he decided last week that whatever thread was holding the ceasefire together had finally snapped.\n <\/p>\n

\n This much is clear: A \u201cceasefire,\u201d at least lately, doesn\u2019t necessarily constitute a ceasing of fire. Fighting between Israel and Iran\u2019s ally Hezbollah continued in Lebanon despite US-brokered ceasefires between the Israeli and Lebanese governments, with the Norwegian Refugee Council<\/a> reporting that nearly 600 people were killed in Lebanon in the weeks following the April ceasefire. And since Trump\u2019s Gaza ceasefire plan, endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, went into effect in October, Israel has continued to attack the territory almost daily, saying it is targeting Hamas: A tally<\/a> by the Government Media Office in Gaza indicates that Israel has violated the ceasefire at least 3,689 times.\n <\/p>\n

\n EDITOR\u2019S NOTE:\u00a0 CNN\u2019s \u201cWord of the Week\u201d brings you the meaning behind the words in the news.\n<\/p>\n

\n What, then, is a \u201cceasefire\u201d? Though the concept is as old as war itself, the term was first recorded in the mid-19th century, appearing in a Scottish newspaper as a two-word military command to cease active hostilities. During the 20th century, it evolved into a one-word noun denoting a temporary suspension of hostilities \u2014 a condition of neither peace nor outright war.\n <\/p>\n

\n When used by political leaders, as well as journalists reporting on their remarks, the word \u201cceasefire\u201d suggests that the violence in a conflict has stopped, says Rachel Nelson, an analyst at the Middle East Policy Council. But she says that often doesn\u2019t reflect what the combatants are still doing. \u201cReally the question is whether these parties are actually honoring what they agreed to,\u201d she adds.\n <\/p>\n

\"US<\/p>\n

\n Despite how straightforward it sounds, a \u201cceasefire\u201d can encompass a range of conditions. The United Nations<\/a> notes that there is no single, universally accepted definition of the term, leaving parties in armed conflicts to determine what it entails for their particular situations. The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Diplomacy indicates that a ceasefire can be confined to a particular area where fighting has erupted or it can cover the entirety of the conflict region, though it notes that \u201cit is usually implicit in such agreements that the cessation of firing is accompanied by no forward movement of positions or armament.\u201d\n <\/p>\n

\n This month also marks the 73rd anniversary of the Korean Armistice Agreement, which established a ceasefire between the militaries of the two Koreas and their respective allies until a final peace agreement between North and South Korea could be achieved. Nearly three-quarters of a century later, the ceasefire remains in place \u2014 even as both sides have exchanged cross-border gunfire over the years, and as a formal peace treaty remains elusive.\n <\/p>\n

\n But without a strict definition in place, nations and political leaders have taken liberties with the term. Trump, when asked to define a ceasefire in a June 3 White House briefing<\/a>, suggested that the word meant something different in the Middle East: \u201cI\u2019d say in that part of the world, a ceasefire is when you\u2019re shooting in a more moderate manner.\u201d\n <\/p>\n

\n At least in terms of capturing the situation on the ground, Trump\u2019s definition was accurate, says Mona Yacoubian, director and senior adviser of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The exchange of hostilities that continued after the ceasefire was announced were indeed less intense than in the first few weeks of the war. \u201cBut it begs the question of how is that a ceasefire?\u201d she adds.\n <\/p>\n

\n A \u201cceasefire,\u201d foreign policy experts say, is only as good as the fine print. \u201c\u2018Ceasefire\u2019 is a broad term, so it\u2019s important to be clear on what was agreed,\u201d Matt Waxman, adjunct senior fellow for law and foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes in an email. \u201cFor example, is the agreement short-term or long-term, and exactly what \u2018fire\u2019 the parties agree to \u2018cease.\u2019\u201d\n <\/p>\n

\"A<\/p>\n

\n The \u201cceasefire\u201d set in motion by the June agreement between the US and Iran was plagued by a lack of precision. One sticking point in the agreement revolved around what it meant to open the Strait of Hormuz. The US understood<\/a> the agreement to mean that Iran would provide unimpeded access through the strait. When the Iranians opened only one channel, and attacked vessels traveling through other routes it described as unauthorized, the US claimed Iran reneged on the agreement, while Iran claimed the same of the US.\n <\/p>\n

\n There was a certain amount of skepticism baked into the ceasefire to begin with. News reports, at varying points in the conflict, characterized it as \u201cshaky,\u201d \u201ctenuous\u201d or \u201cunraveling,\u201d conveying just how uncertain it was. Still, Yacoubian notes that there was utility in negotiators refraining from declaring the ceasefire dead: Even as Iran was attacking shipping traffic, and even as the US carried out military strikes, hedging kept open the possibility that negotiations could continue and possibly move toward something more closely resembling what \u201cceasefire\u201d conveys.\n <\/p>\n

\n As the word ceases to mean a ceasing of fire, new terms have been coined. When Israel continued to fire on Lebanon after a ceasefire was reached in November 2024, Yacoubian says she took to calling it a \u201cless fire.\u201d\n <\/p>\n

\"An<\/p>\n

\n For \u201cceasefire\u201d to regain any semblance of meaning, Yacoubian says violations need to be called out as such. \u201cBy continuing to call something a ceasefire when it\u2019s absolutely not a ceasefire does seem to suggest some kind of degree of complacency or acceptance of that reality, without actually trying to address the challenges,\u201d she says. To use the word \u201cceasefire\u201d to describe a situation in which there isn\u2019t any cessation of firing only dilutes its meaning, she says, eventually rendering it meaningless.\n <\/p>\n

\n But by Trump\u2019s account, it seems a \u201cceasefire\u201d \u2014 and the agreement governing it \u2014 was never that serious at all. \u201cMemorandum of understanding when you\u2019re dealing with sleazebags don\u2019t mean much,\u201d he said in a July 13 interview<\/a> with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. \u201cAnd they don\u2019t mean much when you\u2019re dealing with honorable people, too.\u201d\n <\/p>\n