A fragmented ceasefire map: calm in Iran, apocalypse in Lebanon, defeat in America

What has happened in the Middle East over the last forty days shows that in today's wars, it is not only military ammunition that is expended and consumed, but also meanings, concepts and diplomatic possibilities. We are in an era where even what is called a "ceasefire" no longer signifies peace, but rather the reorganization of war.

The ceasefire reached between Iran and the US initially gave the impression that the world had turned back from the brink of a global catastrophe. However, the bombardment that began in the skies of Lebanon in those same hours laid bare, in all its nakedness, for whom and to what extent this ceasefire was actually valid. It was understood from the very first moment that there was no ceasefire; only the map of war was being redrawn.

Neither the War Resembles Old Wars, Nor the Ceasefire, Nor the Language

We see at every stage that the war launched by the Zionist-US attack on Iran is very different from conventional wars. Neither the war resembles the wars we know, nor its justifications, nor its course, nor its ceasefire. It began with the expectation—even the claim—that such an asymmetric war would be resolved within a few hours, not even a few days, in favor of the technologically superior power. Yet after forty days, it became clear that the relatively simple and weak weapons of the weaker side in the asymmetric balance are capable of far more than imagined.

With simple and cheap weapons, great damage can be inflicted on very heavy and expensive weapons. We had seen this in Gaza as well. In that war, where Merkava tanks worth five million dollars were neutralized by Yasin-105 rockets costing 500–1000 dollars, what was truly powerful was not those rockets, but the hearts, faith and courage of those who carried and used them. In today's wars, where technology is thought to determine everything, it has been shown once again that this factor cannot be completely eliminated.

If It Weren't for Miscalculations, Wars Would Be So Easy to Win

In the war against Iran, it was thought that military superiority would quickly detach the Iranian people from a regime they were already tired of, thereby determining the outcome of the war. The opposite happened. The people, tired of the forty-seven-year-old regime, united in the face of US-Israeli attacks and gave an utterly unexpected response. The US army is not the first army to be misled by incorrect predictions and faulty sociological readings in wars. In essence, a power that decides to attack from that moment on only pays attention to sociological analyses that confirm its own aggression. Yet a more general and impartial sociology tells us that an external attack most often strengthens internal consolidation.

Even the ceasefire that began with Pakistan's initiative at a moment when no cards remained unplayed except the nuclear one, and hearts were in mouths, is different from known ceasefires. This two-week ceasefire, secured in exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, was presented as a "diplomatic success" as a result of Pakistan's intensive mediation. Indeed, this process produced a rare ground of consensus involving regional actors and global powers.

A Selective Ceasefire or a Tactic

However, a fact that emerged in the very first hours of this consensus turned the whole picture upside down: the ceasefire was not for everyone.

Israel's attacks on Lebanon became the most naked expression of this "selective ceasefire." The airstrikes that began only hours after the declaration of the ceasefire caused hundreds of casualties in the first days. But what was truly striking was that the attacks did not stop, and their toll multiplied in the last two days. The fact that the number of dead has now approached two thousand shows that this is no longer a "military operation" but large-scale destruction.

Information that appeared in the Israeli press at the outset, suggesting that "the ceasefire would also cover Lebanon," was quickly withdrawn. The Israeli Chief of Staff's announcement that the attacks would continue, followed by the Netanyahu government's declaration that the ceasefire did not cover Lebanon, revealed once again the strategy that had been followed from the very beginning of this war: to separate the fronts of the war and turn each front into a manageable crisis zone within itself.

The fact that US President Trump openly confirmed this distinction shows that this strategy does not belong only to Israel. Defining Lebanon as a "separate front" is not actually limiting the war, but continuing it in a controlled manner. This is not a ceasefire in the classical sense; it is a reorganization of war.

Perhaps the first problem here was that the Iranian side was not aware of this. When Iran entered ceasefire negotiations, it assumed that it would cover all fronts. The US and Israel, knowing full well of Iran's expectation, deemed a limited ceasefire that would only serve their own interests sufficient. Thus, the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened and the Iranian missiles aimed at Tel Aviv would be stopped.

Their Nature: "They Never Abide by Their Covenants"

Israel, which launched one of the largest attacks in Lebanon's history in the very hours the ceasefire agreement was being signed, once again revealed its well-known nature. What is truly remarkable is that this nature has now spread to the US as well. What we are witnessing today is that words, agreements and diplomacy have lost all value. While conducting negotiations with Iran, the US and Israel started a war, clearly demonstrating that diplomacy can also be used as a tactic of war. In Gaza too, similarly, the ceasefire was turned into a tool that tied the other side's hands, while Israel repeatedly violated it and continued its attacks.

The statements made by Trump, his Secretary of State and the White House spokesperson since the beginning of the war are increasingly turning from political discourse into noise. One day a "full ceasefire" is announced, and the next day the same agreement is declared not to cover Lebanon. Trump's description of the ceasefire as "a pause for a greater conquest" is the clearest exposure of this mentality: peace is not a goal, only a tactical interval.

This language moves away from the seriousness of politics and turns into a field of psychological display. The claim "We will make America great again" is ironically expressed at the cost of eroding the very values that made America great. In the end, neither a consistent strategy nor a persuasive discourse remains.

What is happening in the Middle East today is the collapse not only of a war, but also of a language and a politics. On a ground where ceasefire has lost its meaning, diplomacy has turned into a tactic, and words have lost their credibility, no agreement is permanent anymore. What appears as military superiority in the short term is turning into a deep loss of legitimacy in the long term. The US and Israel may be producing power on the ground today; but at the same time, they are accelerating a process that isolates them from the world.

History has shown us many times: even if wars are won on the front line, they cannot be sustained on a language that has lost its meaning. If a "ceasefire" is no longer valid for everyone, then that means we are inside a war that has not been named—and the true outcome of this war will be the destruction of meanings before the destruction of maps.