Ceasefires, broken promises: The uncertain road forward from US-Iran hostility
As Washington and Tehran edge towards a possible peace deal, history shows that ceasefires can end wars, freeze conflicts for generations, or collapse into renewed violence
The United States and Iran are moving towards a permanent peace deal, and in the political reading of Tehran's supporters, the US government has technically lost the war against Iran's defiant, even arrogant, approach.
After months of hostility, Washington is now signing a peace deal it once seemed unwilling to accept. But history offers a warning: ceasefires can open the door to peace, freeze a conflict for generations, or collapse almost as soon as the ink dries.
That is why the proposed US-Iran arrangement should be read not only as a diplomatic event, but as part of a much older global story.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
The world has seen ceasefires born in trenches, negotiated in capitals, monitored by the UN, and broken on battlefields. Some ended wars. Some merely paused them. Others created uneasy silences that still define borders today.
One of the most human moments came on 24 December 1914, during the First World War. British and German soldiers, exhausted by trench warfare, informally stopped fighting in what became known as the Christmas Truce.
They exchanged gifts, sang carols and reportedly played football in no-man's-land. It was not a treaty, only a fragile act of shared humanity, but it broke.
The Korean Armistice Agreement of 27 July 1953, was different. Signed by the UN Command, the North Korean People's Army and the Chinese People's Volunteer Army, it halted the Korean War and created the Demilitarised Zone along the 38th parallel. Yet it did not produce a final peace treaty. More than seven decades later, it's still active.
On 27 January 1973, the Paris Peace Accords brought together the US, South Vietnam, North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The agreement aimed to end the Vietnam War, create a ceasefire and withdraw US combat troops. But the settlement could not hold back the war's final phase.
Cyprus tells another story of a ceasefire becoming a new geopolitical map. On 22 July 1974, after a Greek-backed coup and Turkish invasion, a UN-brokered ceasefire separated Turkish military forces and Greek Cypriot forces. The Cyprus UN Buffer Zone divided the island, and the ceasefire remains in place. It is still active today.
In El Salvador, however, a ceasefire became a bridge to peace. The Chapultepec Peace Accords ceasefire of 1 February 1992, between the Salvadoran Government and the FMLN, was monitored by the UN. It ended the Salvadoran Civil War and allowed rebel demobilisation, and it ended in peace.
That same year, on 21 July 1992, Moldova and Transnistria, supported by Russia, reached the Transnistria Ceasefire Agreement. It stopped the active phase of the Transnistria War and created a monitored security zone. But it did not resolve the political dispute. It is also still active.
The Bosnia Ceasefire of 12 October 1995, showed how a pause in fighting can prepare the ground for diplomacy. Between the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the US-mediated ceasefire allowed peace negotiations to move forward. It ended in peace.
In Northern Ireland, the Provisional IRA ceasefire on 20 July 1997 allowed Sinn Féin to join peace talks with the British Government. The truce became a crucial step in ending decades of violence. It also ended in peace.
The Helsinki Memorandum of Understanding on 15 August 2005, between the Government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement, followed the devastation of the 2004 tsunami. Both sides agreed to a ceasefire and peace settlement, and peace persisted.
But not all modern ceasefires matured into peace. The Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, between Ukraine and Russian-backed separatists in Donbas, attempted to stop the early fighting in eastern Ukraine. It failed and broke.
The Second Gaza Ceasefire, which began on 19 January 2025, between Israel and Hamas, was designed as a phased arrangement involving humanitarian aid, partial troop withdrawal and prisoner-hostage exchanges. It, too, collapsed.
The world has seen ceasefires born in trenches, negotiated in capitals, monitored by the UN, and broken on battlefields. Some ended wars. Some merely paused them. Others created uneasy silences that still define borders today.
Most recently, the Israel-Lebanon truce of 16 April 2026, between Israel and Hezbollah, was a US-brokered 10-day halt in fighting meant to pause the conflict and allow negotiations. It also failed to secure lasting peace.
This is the uncertain history now hanging over the US-Iran peace process. A ceasefire may be an exit from war, or only an interval before the next round. It may become Korea's frozen armistice, Cyprus's divided map, El Salvador's peace, Bosnia's settlement, or Minsk's warning.
For now, the US and Iran are approaching the language of permanent peace. But history suggests that signing is not the same as settling.
