The Art of the Ceasefire

 https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/the-art-of-the-ceasefire

Historically, negotiating a ceasefire to end an international conflict of this magnitude would have involved months, even years, of talks led by skilled negotiators with large teams of experts, the help of credible mediators such as the United Nations, and armies of diplomats shuttling between the different sides to build trust. Peace proposals are usually negotiated behind closed doors; threats are seldom made publicly. With the Trump Administration, none of this appears to be happening. Ceasefires are not treated as avenues to solve political contradictions and pave the way to a lasting settlement, Bhamidipati said. Instead, they have been reduced to tools of conflict meant to speedily manage escalation, contain risk, limit spillover, and restore short-term stability—a version of kicking the can down the road. Ceasefires don’t end wars; they only interrupt them. And, the longer they continue without a real political resolution, the higher the risks of even greater violence in the future. This is especially true in the Iran war. “The situation is very unstable, and every escalation can lead to a massive deterioration,” Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli military-intelligence officer and Middle East expert at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, told me. “Instead of the ceasefire becoming some sort of platform for a new negotiation and agreement, because of the mistrust of the sides and the fact that they cannot reach an agreement, the ceasefire is actually some sort of situation before renewed escalation.”