Mediators in both the Iran and Ukraine wars have struggled to achieve meaningful ceasefires. Although the US and Iran reached an initial two-week truce on April 7, brokered by Pakistan, the agreement has been fragile from the beginning.

By May 11, Donald Trump had declared that the ceasefire was “on massive life support” and has threatened to resume military action on numerous occasions.

Meanwhile, the latest temporary ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine from May 9 to 11 seemed over before it had begun – a now familiar pattern in the four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion. Ukraine accused Russia of violating the US-mediated pause throughout the three-day period, which ended with drone attacks on Ukrainian civilian and energy infrastructure.

So why do temporary truces in Iran, Ukraine and elsewhere so often fail to last? Ceasefires are diverse in terms of what they aim to achieve, how long they are intended to last and how they try to constrain the use of force. For instance, not all ceasefires are supposed to last forever.

Agreeing to halt conflict for a period of time can keep channels of communication open and build trust and momentum for more substantive conversations. This was the aim of the April 7 ceasefire in Iran. That agreement enabled the US and Iranian delegations to come together for talks in Pakistan over a peace proposal covering Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

That........

© The Conversation