There was never a ceasefire- It was just a pause

By Desmond Nleya

DUBAI- The latest agreement between the United States and Iran was celebrated as a major diplomatic breakthrough. For a few weeks, it looked like peace had finally found a place in one of the world’s most dangerous regions. Oil tankers returned to the Strait of Hormuz, exports increased, and markets responded positively. But the celebrations did not last long.

Within weeks, military tensions had returned, ships were once again avoiding the strategic waterway, and mediators were back at the negotiating table trying to rescue the same agreement they had praised. The collapse raises an important question: was this ever a genuine peace deal, or simply a pause before the next crisis?

The biggest weakness of the agreement was not the lack of signatures. It was the lack of clear commitments. Diplomacy is not about taking photographs after signing documents. It is about ensuring that every promise can actually be carried out. In this case, the agreement left too many important questions unanswered.

There was no clear explanation of what sanctions would be lifted, how long they would remain suspended, how frozen Iranian funds would be released, or who would monitor the process. Even the meaning of maintaining the nuclear “status quo” remained open to different interpretations. Such uncertainty creates room for conflict rather than confidence.

Supporters of the agreement argue that constructive ambiguity is sometimes necessary in diplomacy. That may be true during negotiations. However, ambiguity becomes dangerous once implementation begins. Governments, banks, shipping companies and investors need certainty, not political guesswork. Without clear rules, everyone starts interpreting the agreement in ways that suit their own interests.

The Strait of Hormuz provides another example. The agreement spoke about safe passage for commercial vessels but failed to establish practical systems for navigation, inspections, security or resolving disputes. It relied on goodwill instead of enforceable procedures. In international politics, goodwill rarely survives pressure.

The economic benefits were also overstated. Iran managed to increase oil exports during the temporary sanctions waiver, but uncertainty surrounding banking rules and financial restrictions meant that much of the expected economic recovery never fully materialised. Businesses are reluctant to invest billions of dollars when political agreements may collapse within weeks.

At the same time, both Washington and Tehran appeared to use the ceasefire to strengthen themselves rather than build trust. The United States repositioned military assets while Iran reorganised its internal political landscape. Instead of reducing tensions, the pause gave both sides time to prepare for another confrontation if negotiations failed.

This highlights a painful truth about modern diplomacy. Too often, peace agreements become tactical breathing spaces rather than genuine efforts to resolve disputes. Each side enters negotiations hoping to gain time, improve its position and return stronger if talks collapse.

The mediators also deserve closer scrutiny. Pakistan, Qatar, Egypt and other regional players played an important role in bringing both sides together. Their diplomatic efforts should be recognised. However, mediation alone cannot guarantee peace. A mediator can encourage dialogue, but cannot force powerful countries to honour their promises.

The real problem is that the mediators have influence but very little leverage. They can persuade, but they cannot enforce. Without stronger international guarantees and consequences for breaking agreements, any future deal risks following the same path as the June memorandum—celebrated at the beginning and forgotten a few weeks later.

Diplomacy cannot survive on optimism alone. It requires accountability, transparency and enforceable commitments. Peace agreements should not depend on trust between rivals who have spent decades distrusting each other. They should be built on clear rules that leave little room for misunderstanding or manipulation.

If the United States and Iran are serious about avoiding another cycle of conflict, future negotiations must focus less on political symbolism and more on practical implementation. A signed agreement may create headlines, but only a properly enforced agreement creates lasting peace.

Until then, every ceasefire will remain exactly what this one became-a temporary pause before the next round of uncertainty.

NB: Desmond Nleya is a journalist and News Editor of the Daily Times Newspaper in Dubai. He writes in his own capacity.