استراحة محاربين تحفّزاً لمعاودة القتال..

What has been called a ceasefire agreement is nothing more than a development in a war that has exhausted its parties, to the point where there is no longer any incentive to resume fighting, after the quiver has been refilled with sharper new arrows. The war has worn down its parties, as it has depleted its fuel, and it nearly consumed its participants, without them resolving its decision... or exhausting the logic and rationality of resorting to it. For the first time in the history of modern wars in the region, the option of resorting to war and controlling its movement has gone beyond its parties, and the war itself has taken over the fate of its movement.

The American-Iranian war has proven that the war itself has a say in its initiation, just as it has a decisive say in laying down its burdens, to demonstrate that the war itself has a "rationality," if one may say so, that transcends the will of its parties, as one of the tools of the prevailing historical movement that is slowing down the train of history. War can erupt by mistake, but it has never happened in history that the movement of history possesses the will to decide to wage war, just as it possesses the will to lay down its burdens.

One of the most dangerous decisions of war is assessing the enemy's strength compared to the strength of the initiator of the war. The most dangerous aspect of the decision to wage war is the timing of its initiation and calculating the duration of its flames. It is easy to start a war, but it is difficult to calculate its duration... and even harder to control the timing of its end. Not all wars end with one party defeating another, but most wars are controlled by the war itself in determining their conclusion.

The war is merely part of a series of wars that have defied their parties, otherwise it would not have entered a series of an arithmetic progression that has not and will not reach its maximum limit yet. Wars are usually single rounds where their fate is determined after exhausting their energy fuel, or achieving one of their parties' goals in deciding to initiate it. Rarely does a war lay down its burdens with a truce agreed upon by the fighting parties, in preparation for an upcoming round of fighting, which may be decisive in determining its fate.

The truce may be written, in the form of a decision by the warring parties to cease fire, without ending the state of war between them. Additionally, the truce is usually time-limited, with a specific date, but that does not mean that the combatants are committed to the hypothetical lifespan of the truce. Unless a mechanism for mutual deterrence develops alongside the truce, the truce remains an unstable state of violence, which can be overturned by the truce agreement at any time, without the need to wait for its expiration date. In the case of a truce, the situation is more dangerous if one of the fighting parties does not participate in the negotiation stages to cease fire... or is excluded from the ceasefire negotiations, either by their own doing or through deliberate marginalization by their ally in the war.

All aspects of that strategic flaw in the ceasefire agreement were present in that agreement, making the process of activating the agreement difficult, outside the scope of its agreed-upon timeline, in the case of the ceasefire agreement between Iran and the United States, which lasts for two months. After surpassing the formalities of signing the agreement electronically and the remote signing by its two main parties, the American and Iranian, before exchanging copies of the agreement in Switzerland, we find Israel risking the failure of the agreement by not respecting its most important clauses, the ceasefire on the Lebanese front. Iran threatened that not including the Lebanese front in the ceasefire agreement means that Tehran would resort to suspending the agreement and resuming fighting, starting with bombarding Israel.

In reality, Iran did not immediately bombard Israel in response to Israel's continued bombardment of southern Lebanon, not to maintain the ceasefire agreement, but at the urgent request of Washington not to strike Israel, in order to preserve the truce. With Israel continuing to bombard southern Lebanon, Iran responded by closing the strategically valuable Strait of Hormuz to Donald Trump, so that Tehran would not fulfill Israel's aim of sabotaging the ceasefire agreement.

In any case: the ceasefire agreement represents an exit for the Trump administration, not in claiming victory, but for President Trump to emerge from the furnace of war, which Washington's decision-making institutions and American public opinion almost attribute to Netanyahu's government as being behind the war, dragging Washington into a war in which the United States has no stake.

This war will not be stopped by a fragile truce agreed upon between Tehran and Washington, imposed by the will of war itself. Israel and a particular state in the region have no interest in stopping the war or reaching a final solution to the crisis, proving that Israel is the primary enemy of peace, even if it costs them their special alliance with the United States.

If the truce is destined to last until the end of its agreed-upon validity, then the war will reignite; because the unresolved issues between the two main fighting parties are still present, and the duration of the truce does not mean the cessation of hostilities between its parties.