By Jean Baptiste Ndabananiye
As Washington and Tehran move cautiously toward a ceasefire, the promise of de-escalation is already being overshadowed by deep mistrust, conflicting interpretations, and continued violence across the region. Statements by Donald Trump, coupled with escalating tensions from Lebanon to the Strait of Hormuz, suggest that what is being presented as a breakthrough may, in reality, be a fragile pause rather than durable peace. The central question, therefore, is not whether a ceasefire has been announced—but whether it can truly be implemented under conditions that remain fundamentally unstable.
The suspicion on the observance of the deal is started to be raised, as the current tensions portend that the deal may reach nothing. The US President Donald Trump is declaring “All US ships, aircraft, and military personnel” will be kept around Iran until the “real agreement” on a ceasefire “is fully complied with”, warning of more conflict otherwise.
In the meantime, Lebanon has proclaimed a day of mourning after a wave of Israeli attacks claimed the lives of at least 254 people and wounded more than 1,165 in a single day on Wednesday. Al Jazeera has reported “We have been hearing from different Iranian officials, in public and from security forces, warning about the repercussions of any breach of the ceasefire. They are saying that attacks on Lebanese territory are considered, from the Iranian perspective, a breach of the ceasefire agreement.
They are putting emphasis on the fact that a comprehensive cessation of attacks by Israelis and Americans across the region, including on the Lebanese front, was part of the deal that was reached to pave the way for a negotiated settlement. Iran is also pointing to a [US] drone being downed in central Iran yesterday as a further breach. There is now talk from Iranian officials of a potential withdrawal from the process entirely if attacks do not stop.”
The climate around the Strait of Hormuz represents another issue of complication. Iran is attempting to avail herself of the strait as a leverage point, as this nation knows its strategically great role in the energy market.
Iran is reportedly planning to enforce tariffs on ships going through the strait. This country is endeavoring to describe its control over this strategically important chokepoint as an indication of victory in an already complex situation.
All people are now staring at Islamabad where talks between the US and Iran are awaited. The Iranian delegation has already confirmed its arrival in the capital. However, the situation actually stays extremely fragile.
The highly awaited deal is likely to achieve little. Truces which usually attain impacts are those which comprise elements on which the parties agree through what is known as collaboration, accommodation, compromise or even competition. Yet none of these dynamics are visible in the current US–Iran atmosphere. What now exists instead includes mutual suspicion, competing narratives of victory, and continued escalation across the region—conditions that rarely sustain peace.
Collaboration is a durable conflict resolution approach in which all parties work together to reach an agreement that fully satisfies the interests and expectations of each side. It represents an ideal in conflict transformation, as it produces mutually beneficial outcomes where no party feels compromised or disadvantaged.
Accommodation constitutes a conflict style in which one party yields to the demands or interests of the other, prioritizing the preservation of the relationship over its own full satisfaction. It is often a pragmatic choice in conflict transformation, though it falls short of the ideal since only one side’s needs are fully fulfilled.
Compromise is a conflict resolution approach where each party yields concessions to reach a mutually acceptable middle ground. While it facilitates progress and reduces tension, it does not fully satisfy either side, making it a practical but imperfect outcome in conflict transformation.
Competition stands as a conflict style in which one party seeks to assert its position over the other, often aiming to win at the expense of its counterpart. In conflict transformation, it is the least ideal, as it produces winners and losers rather than fostering mutual satisfaction or sustainable peace.
Peacebuilding experts affirm that even the “winner” can rarely sustain a clear narrative of victory, since the costs of confrontation, continued resistance, and the absence of mutual recognition tend to erode the legitimacy and stability of that outcome. The defeated party often continues to resist, regroup, and contest the outcome—sometimes until it is able to challenge or even overturn the winner’s position.
Back to the question, a cautious reading of current developments suggests that while a ceasefire may be formally declared, its full implementation remains uncertain. Persistent mistrust, competing narratives of compliance, and ongoing military and strategic pressures across the region all point to a fragile arrangement that could easily unravel without genuine commitment from both sides. So, we can argue that the ceasefire is unlikely to be fully implemented in a sustained and meaningful way, given the prevailing mistrust, conflicting interpretations of its terms, and the continued escalation shaping the broader regional context.