Israel-Iran Ceasefire Agreement: Still a Long Way to Easing Tensions
Israel and Iran, which have been exchanging attacks, have agreed to a ceasefire, U.S. President Donald Trump has announced.
If implemented, this would be an important step toward avoiding an all-out war between these two military powers in the Middle East. Both countries are strongly urged to exercise restraint, so as not to slide back into fighting.
Trump said in a social media post that the two countries had agreed to a 'Complete and Total CEASEFIRE' and indicated that he expected the fighting would end as early as June 25.
Iran's foreign minister also announced that Iran would not continue retaliating if Israel stopped its attacks.
Prior to the announcement of the ceasefire, Iran launched a missile attack on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the largest U.S. base in the Middle East. Iran claimed the attack was in retaliation for the U.S. military's attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, but the United States and Qatar were notified in advance and no casualties were reported.
By limiting the attack to a restrained one, Iran may have signaled that it did not want a further escalation in the fighting, while still saving face by having retaliated against the United States.
The Israeli side also is believed to have accepted the ceasefire sought by the United States, as it has succeeded to a certain extent in destroying nuclear facilities and military bases in Iran with the support of the U.S. military.
The hope is that the two countries will stop attacking each other, and the spread and intensification of warfare in the Middle East will be halted.
However, while Trump was quick to announce the ceasefire, both countries were slow to express their positions. The situation does not warrant optimism, as there is no clear path toward the implementation of the ceasefire and the abandonment of Iran's nuclear development.
There is no doubt that Trump led the way in this ceasefire. During an emergency meeting at the U.N. Security Council, the United States argued that the U.S. military attack on Iran constituted an exercise of the right of collective self-defense to protect its ally Israel.
Although the U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force in principle, it approves of U.N. members exercising the right of self-defense as an exception. For that reason, Washington asserted that its action did not violate the charter.
However, even though Iran was promoting nuclear development, may it be said that the threat was not so obvious and imminent that Israel and the United States would be forced to invoke the right of self-defense? They also did not call in advance for a resolution authorizing the use of force at the Security Council.
Even if the method of wielding the U.S. military's overwhelming military power to bring the other side to its knees is temporarily effective, it will not lead to a long-term solution unless accompanied by diplomatic efforts.
This could set a precedent for countries other than the United States to use the threat from another country as an excuse to use force.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, June 25, 2025)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
an hour ago
- The Mainichi
Editorial: Trump's 'peace by force' plants seed of future evils
U.S. President Donald Trump has announced that Israel and Iran have agreed to a "complete and total" ceasefire in their ongoing conflict. To prevent an escalation and put an end to the mutual attacks, we urge both parties to steadily implement the accord. The war in the Middle East has entered a new phase. It must lead to stability in the region. Israel launched attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities and air defense systems claiming Tehran was close to developing an atomic weapon. It killed senior officers of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps and multiple scientists involved in its nuclear development program. Iran countered with ballistic missiles and drones, leading to a large-scale exchange of fire. Then in a sudden turn of events, the United States unleashed strikes against Iran, bombing three Iranian nuclear facilities in the name of collective self-defense. Israel's heavy responsibility The Iranian leadership's promises of retaliation against the U.S. prompted concerns that tensions in the Middle East would escalate further. The Iranian parliament voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, a major artery for crude oil shipments, raising fears for the global economy. But Iran's retaliation was subdued. While Tehran fired missiles at a U.S. military base on the outskirts of Doha, Qatar, prior to the ceasefire agreement, no damage was reported. Iran had warned Washington and Qatar before the attack. What is concerning is that the U.S. air attacks could allow the strategy of "peace by force" to go unchallenged. Washington, while hinting at its readiness to pursue negotiations, resorted to military action to force Iran into submission. This approach is unacceptable. Israel has justified its strikes as acts of self-defense. However, negotiations between Tehran and Washington over Iran's nuclear program were ongoing at the time, and it is inconceivable that there was imminent threat. Israel's actions run counter to international law and the United Nations Charter, both of which constrain the use of force. Regarding its bombing of Iran, Washington also claimed that it had exercised its right to collective self-defense to rid the world of a source of anxiety and defend its ally, Israel. This, however, is nothing but a gross overextension of the interpretation of collective defense. Furthermore, it cannot be overlooked that Israel and Washington targeted Iran's nuclear facilities in their attacks. International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi has sounded the alarm, stating, "I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities must never be attacked," and, "the IAEA has consistently underlined that 'armed attacks on nuclear facilities could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked.'" In Ukraine, Russia attacked the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station in the south, sparking a blame game between Kyiv and Moscow. International rules are being neglected through "the logic of the strong." Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council has been dysfunctional when it ought to be responsible for global peace and stability. Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, invaded its neighbor, while the U.S., fellow permanent member, had a part in Israel's attacks on Iran. The rules of law must be restored What was recently brought into sharp relief was the double standard of the international community, primarily the U.S. and Europe. Nations strongly condemned Russia over its invasion of Ukraine and imposed severe sanctions against Moscow, while remaining silent about Washington's behavior. The leaders of Britain, France and Germany have stressed that it remains their goal to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while avoiding direct evaluation on the U.S. strikes. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also told a press conference, "My biggest fear would be for Iran to own and be able to use and deploy a nuclear weapon," and, "I would not agree that this is against international law -- what the U.S. did." Regarding the U.S. strikes, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said they were "a show of Washington's resolve to thwart Iran's acquisition of nuclear arms." However, the rubber-stamp stance of Japan and Europe on Washington's self-righteous behavior will only result in them losing the confidence of the emerging and developing countries of the Global South. What was destroyed in the latest strikes was not just Iran's nuclear facilities. These events have taken a heavy toll on the post-World War II international order, established by humanity in search of a world without wars, borne of their remorse over the two global conflagrations of the 20th century. The roles to be played by middle powers like countries in Europe and Japan are to commit themselves to rebuilding international norms. It is essential to restore the rule of law, tarnished by the high-handed behavior of superpowers, and put the brakes on the descent into turmoil.
Asahi Shimbun
4 hours ago
- Asahi Shimbun
Nippon Steel says it rebuffed Trump's attempt to ‘call the shots'
Nippon Steel Corp. overrode resistance from U.S. President Donald Trump and turned U.S. Steel into a wholly owned subsidiary, the Japanese company's chief executive said. Eiji Hashimoto told a shareholders meeting on June 24 that Nippon Steel stood firm on its original plans to acquire all shares of the storied American steelmaker. 'Trump said he did not want to approve a 100-percent ownership and called for lowering our proposed share to 49 percent or less, if possible, but we eventually prevailed,' said Hashimoto, who is also chairman. Nippon Steel acquired all common shares in U.S. Steel for about $14 billion (2 trillion yen) on June 18. In winning approval from the Trump administration, Japan's top steelmaker concluded a national security agreement with the U.S. government and decided to issue a 'golden share,' which will give Washington extensive veto power over key management decisions. When a shareholder asked if Nippon Steel will be tied hand and foot by the U.S. government, Hashimoto said the company would not have gone ahead with the buyout if the deal terms had allowed Washington to 'call the shots.' Up to nine members sit on U.S. Steel's board of directors. An external director will be appointed by the U.S. government, and the appointments of two others must be approved by Washington. Still, Hashimoto said Nippon Steel will be able to secure sufficient freedom in management, noting that a majority of U.S. Steel directors will be nominated by the Japanese company. The annual meeting attracted 1,257 shareholders, about 80 percent more than last year.
Japan Today
4 hours ago
- Japan Today
Japan, NATO agree to collaborate on Iran, Ukraine, N Korea issues
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, right, and Japans Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya speak with the media on the sidelines of the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on Tuesday. Japan and NATO agreed Tuesday to closely collaborate to address "security challenges" such as the Middle East crisis, Russia's war against Ukraine and North Korea's past abductions of Japanese nationals. During their talks in The Hague, Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte also affirmed that they would work to elevate their cooperation to "a new height" in various fields including defense industries, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said. The talks came as the United States, a NATO member and Japan's close ally, conducted airstrikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities amid the conflict between Israel and Iran, although the regional rivals said earlier Tuesday they had agreed to a cease-fire. Russia and North Korea have been strengthening their military partnership as Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine -- which began in 2022 -- drags on and Pyongyang continues its missile and nuclear development. NATO has been stepping up cooperative ties in recent years with its Indo-Pacific partners of Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, sharing the view that security in the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions is inseparable. Iwaya met with Rutte on the sidelines of an ongoing NATO summit as a stand-in for Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who canceled his planned visit to the Dutch city at the last minute due to the absence of other Indo-Pacific leaders and concerns over the Middle East situation. © KYODO
