The recent Israel-Iran ceasefire, announced alongside U.S. President Donald Trump’s remarks, has raised hopes—and eyebrows. Both sides claim to have upheld the truce, yet fresh accusations of violations highlight how fragile any pause in hostilities can be.
In the days before the ceasefire, the U.S. launched Operation Midnight Hammer, deploying B-2 stealth bombers armed with GBU-57 bunker busters on three Iranian nuclear sites. U.S. officials hailed it as a “spectacular military success,” but history begs a different question: do military victories deliver lasting peace?
Lessons from the past
History offers a cautionary tale. Two decades ago, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq—justified over alleged weapons of mass destruction—triggered prolonged instability, sectarian violence and the rise of extremist groups. Similar interventions in Afghanistan and Libya also failed to yield sustainable peace, often leaving power vacuums in their wake.
Why war falls short
- Short-term gains, long-term costs: Military strikes can remove immediate threats but rarely address root causes.
- Power vacuums: The fall of regimes often leaves a void filled by rival factions or extremist groups.
- Human cost: Civilian casualties and displacement can sow lasting resentment.
Paths to peace
Thought leaders now argue that true security emerges from dialogue and diplomacy. A genuine ceasefire, inclusive negotiations and robust rebuilding efforts could pave the way for de-escalation. Young changemakers, entrepreneurs and global citizens can champion cross-cultural projects and bridge divides.
As the Israel-Iran truce hangs in the balance, one thing is clear: war is the wrong answer. Real progress demands patience, negotiation and a commitment to shared prosperity.
Reference(s):
cgtn.com
