A few hours after President Donald Trump unexpectedly announced a high fire between Israel and Iran on June 23, 2025, both countries launched air attacks against the other.
“Basically, we have two countries that have been fighting so much time and with such intensity that they have no idea what the hell they do,” said Trump, angry and frustrated, to the press in front of the White House on June 24.
Although Iran and Israel provisionally agreed to the truce – and Trump reiterated on June 24 that the “high to fire is in force” – it is not clear if this agreement will be maintained. Some investigations show that approximately 80% of high fire agreements worldwide fail.
Amy Lieberman, editor of Policy and Society at The Conversation Us, spoke with former Embajador Donald Heflin, American career diplomat and executive director of the Edward R. Murrow center of the Fletcher School of the University of Tufts, to understand how the ceases of the fire typically operates and how the agreement between Israel is compared and will go with other agreements to end the wars.
How are the fire cessation agreements of fire agreements?
Classes are taught on how to negotiate cessations of fire, but adapt to each situation.
For example, in a scenario, one of the conflict parties wants a high fire and decided that the conflict is not going well. The other party might not want a stop to the fire, but it could coincide that it is getting tired or that the risks are too high, and choose to reach an agreement.
The next scenario, with greater success, is when both parties want a high fire. They decide that the loss of lives and money was excessive for both parties. One of them approaches the other through intermediaries to express their desire for a stop to the fire, and the other belligerent part access.
In a third situation – the one we are seeing with the agreement between Iran and Israel – the outside world imposes a high fire. Trump probably told Israel and Iran: “Look, enough. This is too dangerous for the rest of the world. We don’t care what they think. It’s time for a fire stop.”
The United States already did this in the East before, as after the Yom Kipur war in 1973 between Israel and a coalition of Arab countries led by Egypt and Syria. Israel was achieving great military victories, but the risk to the world was very large. The United States intervened and said: “Enough, stop it now.” And it worked.
Does the United States gather the belligerent parts at a negotiating table in this type of situation or simply presses them to cease the fighting?
It is rather that the United States says: “It’s over.” When the United States does something like that, it usually has the support of the European Union and other countries such as Qatar, which say: “Americans are right. It’s time for a fire stop.”
This agreement does not seem to include specific details. The cessations of fire work better when they include them. Durable cessations must address the concerns of the parties in conflict and give each part of what you want.
For example, in the war between Ukraine and Russia, we have not seen any of those countries press for a fire. Part of the problem lies in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian territories that Russia attached and claims as their own. Russia would be in accordance with an agreement that put it in command of Crimea and Ukraine, but Ukraine will not accept it. In this conflict, it is necessary to address the question of who controls specific areas of territory; Otherwise, the high on fire will not last.
Read more: Iranian Parliament approves suspending cooperation with the UN Nuclear Control Agency
Who is responsible for guaranteeing that both parties respect a ceasefire?
Security guarantees are an important element to negotiate and maintain cessations of long -term fire. Great countries like the United States could affirm that if a belligerent part violates a high fire agreement, they will punish it.
In the 1990s, the United States and Europe assured Ukraine that, if he renounced its nuclear arsenal, the United States would defend it if Russia came to invade her. Russia invaded Ukraine twice since then, in 2014 and 2022. The United States gave a more forceful response by sending weapons and other war materials to Ukraine after the invasion of 2022, but there were no real consequences for Russia.
This generated a problem for the cessations of fire in the future, since the United States did not meet its previous security guarantees.
The more one moves away from Europe, the less interest the West in the wars. But in that type of disputes, the United Nations Peace Troops and other international forces can be sent. Sometimes, this can work wonderfully in one place, as in the example of international peace troops called Mission of multilateral observers parked between Israel and Egypt, which help maintain peace among those countries. But it can be replicated in another place and simply does not work so well.
How does this high fire fit in the history of others?
It is too soon to know. The important thing is how the details are specified.
Ideally, representatives of the Israeli and Iranian governments could be brought together to meet at a conference table and reach a detailed agreement. The Israelis could say: “We need guarantees that Iran will not use a nuclear weapon.” And the Iranians could say: “The murders of our generals and scientists must cease.” That type of conversation and agreement is what is missing, so far, in this process.
Why is it so common that high fire agreements fail?
Some high fire agreements do not address the underlying causes of the problem or what prompted people to shoot this time. If the root of the conflict is not addressed, a curite is being put on. Putting a curite to someone who bleeds is a good measure, but ultimately, something else may be needed to stop bleeding.
The outside world could be quite happy with a high fire agreement that seems to stop fighting, but if the details are not polished, experts would say: “This will not last.”
With information from The Conversation.
Subscribe to Forbes Mexico
