The fragmented map of the ceasefire: calm in Iran, apocalypse in Lebanon, rout in the US

What has happened in the Middle East over the past forty days shows that in wars it is no longer only military munitions that are spent and exhausted, but meanings, concepts and diplomatic possibilities as well, as though they too were ammunition. We are living in an era in which even what is called a "ceasefire" no longer signifies peace, but merely the reorganization of war.

The ceasefire reached between Iran and the US initially gave the impression that the world had stepped back from the brink of a global catastrophe. Yet the bombardment that began in the skies over Lebanon in those very 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 at all; the map of the war was simply being redrawn.

NEITHER THE WAR RESEMBLES OLD WARS, NOR THE CEASEFIRE, NOR THE LANGUAGE

At every stage we see that the war the Zionist-US side began by attacking Iran is very different from conventional wars. Neither the war itself, nor its justifications, nor its course, nor its ceasefire resembles the wars we know. It began with the expectation, indeed the claim, that a profoundly asymmetric war would be resolved in favor of the technologically superior power not within a few days but within a few hours. Yet at the end of 40 days it became clear that the relatively simple and weak weapons of the weaker side of the asymmetric balance are capable of far more than had been assumed.

With simple and cheap weapons, great damage can be inflicted on very heavy and expensive ones. We had seen this in Gaza as well. In a war in which 5-million-dollar Merkava tanks were destroyed by Yasin-105 rockets costing 500-1000 dollars, what was truly powerful was not those rockets but the hearts, the faith and the courage of those who carried and used them. In the wars of our day, in which technology is thought to determine everything, it has once again become evident that this factor has not been entirely eliminated.

HOW EASILY WARS WOULD BE WON, WERE IT NOT FOR WRONG CALCULATIONS

In the war on Iran, too, it was thought that military superiority would quickly detach the Iranian people from a regime they were already fed up with and determine the outcome of the war. The exact opposite happened. The people, who were tired of a 47-year-old regime, closed ranks in the face of the US-Israeli attacks and gave an entirely unexpected response. The US army is not the first army to be misled in war by wrong predictions and faulty sociological readings. In fact, once a power has set its mind on attacking, from that moment on it takes into account only those sociological analyses that will confirm its own aggression. Yet a more general and impartial sociology tells us that an external attack will, more often than not, strengthen internal consolidation.

At a moment when no card remained unplayed other than the nuclear one, when hearts were in mouths, even the ceasefire that began with Pakistan's initiative differs from known ceasefires. This two-week ceasefire, secured in exchange for the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, was presented as a "diplomatic success" resulting from Pakistan's intensive mediation. Indeed, this process had produced a rare ground of understanding involving regional actors and global powers.

A SELECTIVE CEASEFIRE, OR CEASEFIRE AS A TACTIC

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

Israel's attacks on Lebanon became the barest expression of this "selective ceasefire." The air strikes that began only hours after the ceasefire was announced caused hundreds of deaths in the first days. But what was truly striking was that the attacks did not stop and that their toll multiplied in the last two days. With the number of those who have lost their lives now approaching 2000, it is clear that what we have is no longer a "military operation" but widespread destruction.

The reports in the Israeli press at the outset that "the ceasefire will also cover Lebanon" were quickly retracted. The Israeli Chief of the General Staff's announcement that the attacks would continue, followed by the Netanyahu government's declaration that the ceasefire did not include Lebanon, once again revealed the strategy followed since the very beginning of this war: to separate the fronts of the war and to turn each front into a manageable crisis zone in its own right.

The fact that US President Trump openly confirmed this distinction shows that this strategy belongs not only to Israel. Defining Lebanon as a "separate front" is, in reality, not a limitation of the war but its controlled continuation. This is not a ceasefire in the classical sense; it is a reorganization of the war.

Perhaps the first problem here was that the Iranian side was unaware of this. When Iran began the ceasefire talks, it assumed that it would cover all fronts. The US and Israel, knowing full well of Iran's expectation, considered a limited ceasefire that would serve only their own interests to be sufficient. Thus the passage through Hormuz would be opened and the Iranian missiles aimed at Tel Aviv would be halted.

TIYNET: "THEY NEVER STAND BY THEIR COVENANTS"

By launching one of the greatest attacks in its history on Lebanon in the very hours when the ceasefire agreement was being signed, Israel once again revealed its well-known tiynet (innate disposition). What is truly noteworthy is that this disposition has now spread to the US as well. What we witness today is that word, agreement and diplomacy have been left with no value whatsoever. By starting the war while conducting talks with Iran, the US and Israel openly demonstrated that diplomacy, too, can be used as a tactic of war. In Gaza as well, in a similar fashion, the ceasefire had been turned into an instrument that tied the other side's hands, while Israel continued its attacks through repeated violations.

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

This language is drifting away from the seriousness of politics and turning into a field of psychological exposure. The claim "We will make America great again" is, ironically, voiced at the expense of eroding the very values that made America great. In the end, neither a coherent strategy nor a convincing discourse remains.

What is happening in the Middle East today is the collapse not merely of a war but also of a language and a politics. On ground where the ceasefire has lost its meaning, diplomacy has turned into a tactic and the word has lost its credibility, no agreement is lasting any longer. What looks like military superiority in the short term turns into a deep loss of legitimacy in the long term. The US and Israel may be generating 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 time and again: Wars cannot be sustained on top of a language that has lost its meaning, even if they are won at the front. If "ceasefire" is no longer valid for everyone, then we are in the midst of an unnamed war, and the real outcome of this war will be the destruction of meanings before the destruction of maps.