Israel-Iran Conflict: A Ceasefire Without Trust
The ceasefire between Israel and Iran, which came into effect on June 24, 2025, deserves recognition as an initial step to de-escalate the open conflict. However, many around the world, including Indonesia, believe that this ceasefire was not built on mutual trust, but rather on situational pressure and strategic calculation.
When bombs have fallen and lives have been lost, a pause in gunfire is no guarantee of peace. It may merely be the calm before a greater storm. The international community realizes that a peace agreement without trust is unlikely to endure.
Air strikes, missiles, and military operations over 12 days have claimed more than 600 Iranian lives, while Israel has recorded 28 casualties. This imbalance not only deepens wounds but also fuels narratives of revenge and injustice. This is the core issue: without justice, peace lacks strong roots.
Indonesia, a nation that consistently upholds humanitarian principles and global peace—as enshrined in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution—observes with deep concern the escalating conflict in the Middle East.
As a country with good relations within the international community, Indonesia has a moral and geopolitical interest in promoting a peaceful resolution—not just a ceasefire, but fair and dignified negotiations. The hopes of the Indonesian people align with the global voice: stop the war, come to the negotiating table.
People around the world increasingly understand that war is not merely about military or geopolitical matters—it impacts ordinary human lives: children losing parents, homes destroyed, communities economically crippled.
Thus, the global community’s greatest hope is that such conflicts do not evolve into a broader regional war. The world is already exhausted by endless wars, and the international public demands that leaders take responsibility—not only for their countries, but for humanity.
The United Nations has indeed called for respect toward the ceasefire, but without an effective monitoring mechanism, such calls are easily ignored. When major powers like the U.S. and Israel act without firm multilateral oversight, what results is not peace—but domination.
A Fragile Ceasefire
The official end of the 12-day war between Israel and Iran through the ceasefire agreement on June 24, 2025, should have marked a turning point for peace efforts in the Middle East. However, for Iran, the agreement raises significant questions.
The statement by Iran’s Armed Forces Chief of Staff, General Abdolrahim Mousavi, who openly doubted Israel’s commitment to the ceasefire, indicates that the peace achieved is fragile rather than solid.
Iran’s suspicion of Israel is rooted in historical experience and repeated behavior—peace promises have often been unilaterally withdrawn by Tel Aviv whenever the political or military landscape favored them.
Iran’s doubts were reinforced by Israel’s nearly simultaneous announcement of renewed military focus on the Gaza Strip to target Hamas. This shows that Israel’s militaristic posture did not cease with the ceasefire with Iran.
This gives the impression that the ceasefire is sectoral and fails to address the root of the conflict. Many in the region perceive that Israel tends to see ceasefires as tactical pauses, not strategic efforts for comprehensive conflict de-escalation.
From a defense strategy perspective, Iran responded by adopting a deterrence posture. Tehran’s strong rhetoric—asserting readiness to retaliate if attacked again—shows that the ceasefire is conditional.
Such peace does not arise from mutual trust, but from power calculations and international pressure. In many Middle Eastern cases, such ceasefires are short-lived because they are not followed by political reconciliation or credible security guarantees from both sides.
What we are witnessing is the weakness of international norms in dealing with existential conflicts. Both Israel and Iran view this conflict as essential to their national survival. In such circumstances, international law norms are often set aside in favor of military advantage or geopolitical dominance.
The UN has called for compliance with the ceasefire, but the effectiveness of this appeal relies heavily on voluntary compliance—not enforceable laws or sanctions.
Thus, the current ceasefire is only a temporary bandage for a deep wound left unhealed. Without honest and comprehensive diplomatic steps and strong international monitoring mechanisms, such peace agreements are easily shattered.
The international community, particularly major powers with direct influence over both sides, must intervene more seriously. Otherwise, the Middle East will remain trapped in a vicious cycle: war, ceasefire, war again.
Information Warfare and Asymmetric Tension
The conflict between Israel and Iran is not only manifested in conventional military attacks but also extends to a more invisible battlefield: information warfare and espionage.
Recently, Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence accused Israeli agents of launching a mass phone campaign targeting Iranian civilians. The aim was not merely technical disruption, but a structured effort to access personal data and spread disinformation to destabilize internal conditions.
This accusation signals the emergence of hybrid warfare—blending military, cyber, psychological, and propaganda tactics into one strategic framework.
This aligns with the concept of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW), the modern warfare phase where the lines between combatants and civilians, battlefields and public spaces, become blurred. In 4GW, psychological, social, and cyber dimensions become more dominant than conventional weapons.
Iran explicitly views such attacks as a form of non-military aggression no less dangerous than missiles and drones. These threats target the collective consciousness of society. Though invisible, the effects can erode national resilience from within.
The main concern is how disinformation and manipulation can systemically destroy social cohesion. Such information warfare and espionage campaigns are designed not to defeat opponents in battle, but to weaken public trust in governments and spark horizontal unrest among citizens.
This situation highlights a major shift in national defense paradigms. Tanks, fighter jets, or missiles are no longer sufficient symbols of strength. Nations must now bolster cybersecurity systems, public media literacy, and communication strategies to face non-physical threats.
In many cases, defeat in information warfare can be more devastating than defeat in armed conflict, as the effects are long-term and corrode social structures from within.
Therefore, modern conflicts like the Israel-Iran crisis require a far more comprehensive approach. Governments and societies must prepare to face new forms of attack that no longer arrive as explosions—but through text messages, false narratives, and infiltration of public opinion.
In a world increasingly connected digitally, national resilience is not only measured by military might, but also by the ability to protect information integrity and national unity amidst asymmetric propaganda.
Weak Multilateralism
The call from UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres for all parties to respect the ceasefire between Israel and Iran reflects the UN’s normative role as a global peacekeeper. However, in contemporary geopolitics, such appeals often sound more like moral rhetoric than effective mechanisms for resolution.
Without strong and binding enforcement instruments, the UN tends to remain an observer amidst conflicts. The Israel-Iran conflict is the latest example where the UN could do little beyond issuing appeals.
One root of the problem lies in the UN Security Council, which is too often polarized by the veto interests of the five major powers. When these countries—especially the U.S., a strategic ally of Israel—have direct stakes in a conflict, multilateral efforts to ease tensions become gridlocked.
Veto after veto causes vital resolutions to stall, and conflicts unfold without an enforcer with real power.
In a multipolar international system, this imbalance increasingly hinders consolidation of global institutions. The Israel-Iran conflict demonstrates how major powers often act unilaterally without awaiting international mandates. The U.S., for instance, attacked Iranian nuclear facilities without a legitimate multilateral process.
Meanwhile, Iran also responded unilaterally by launching missiles into Israeli territory. In such conditions, multilateral diplomacy is not only technically weakened—it also loses credibility in the eyes of the global public. The UN is seen more as a discussion forum than an enforcing body.
Yet, in an increasingly complex and interconnected world, multilateralism remains essential. Major challenges—from geopolitical conflict and terrorism to climate change—cannot be resolved unilaterally.
To make multilateralism work, major powers must show political will to respect international law and share responsibility in maintaining global order.
Without this, the international system will remain dominated by the law of the jungle: the strong dictate the course.
Therefore, long-term solutions for peace and global stability require more than administrative strengthening of institutions like the UN. What’s more crucial is changing the mindset of key actors to be willing to work within a collective, inclusive, and just framework.
The world needs multilateralism that is not merely symbolic—but functional—where justice and shared rules are stronger than political vetoes and unilateral interests. Without that, every major conflict will only become the next stage for global diplomacy’s failure
The 12-day armed conflict between Israel and Iran has left not only physical destruction but also deep social and political wounds.
The death toll shows a stark imbalance: more than 610 Iranians killed and 4,000 injured, compared to 28 Israeli deaths and 2,000 wounded. This disparity represents more than just statistics—it reflects a deepening gap in perception.
For the Iranian people, this tragedy is further proof of power imbalance and biased international treatment. It fuels the national narrative that they are victims of Western-backed aggression.
This imbalance doesn’t stop at the numbers. It shapes political narratives that strengthen conservative and hardline groups in Iran, who have long advocated strategic independence and caution against foreign intervention.
In Iran’s domestic politics, casualties become fuel for anti-Western and anti-Israel rhetoric, potentially narrowing the space for diplomacy in the future. When society is united by collective trauma, the space for compromise or dialogue shrinks—this is the long-term danger of unresolved conflict.
On the other hand, Israel has announced its military focus will return to the Gaza Strip to combat Hamas. However, this shift in focus does not guarantee that tensions with Iran will subside.
Instead, Israel now risks simultaneous two-front confrontations—prolonged conflict in Palestine and potential renewed clashes with Iran in the Persian Gulf. This creates significant strategic pressure on Israel’s military and foreign policy and could spark regional escalation involving global powers.
This condition clarifies that the ceasefire is a fragile pause. There is no guarantee that violence won’t erupt again soon. In a situation where wounds are unhealed and trust has never taken root, even a small incident can reignite conflict.
Without a clear mechanism for political resolution and justice for victims, peace remains a temporary illusion.
What is needed now is not merely a cessation of arms but a serious effort to build a fairer and more sustainable peace architecture. Without acknowledgment of the victims and accountability for the imbalance, this strategic wound will remain open.
The international community must push for a recovery process that includes political, psychological, and social dimensions so this tragedy does not become the root of future conflicts.
Because if the wound is left unhealed, it will become embers that can reignite at any moment.
Prof. Dr. Ermaya Suradinata, SH, MH, MS
Board of Experts for Geopolitics and Geostrategy, BPIP RI
English 
Indonesian