Israel and Iran Agree to Ceasefire After 12 Days of War: A Diplomatic Breakthrough

After 12 days of intense combat that risked to grow into a wider regional conflict, Israel and Iran have agreed to a full ceasefire in what may be seen as a pivotal moment in regional diplomacy. U.S. President Donald Trump made the announcement Monday night, saying that following direct talks with both administrations, both nations had agreed to a complete halt in military operations.  World leaders, international organizations, and regional players have mostly praised the development, with many expecting it signals the start of a longer-term diplomatic process.

President Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social, “On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end what should be called ‘THE 12-DAY WAR.’”

Trump said high-level talks between Washington, Tel Aviv, and Tehran led to the ceasefire, which he called a diplomatic victory. The ceasefire was mediated during a phone conversation between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which Israel allegedly agreed to suspend its operations as long as Iran did not conduct any further assaults, according to a senior White House official. After almost two weeks of airstrikes, missile launches, and widespread fear, the announcement was a welcome relief. Trump praised both countries for their agreement to stop additional action and save the issue from getting worse, demonstrating “maturity and strategic thinking.”

Iran’s stance was stated more cautiously, even though the ceasefire announcement was extensively reported in the world media. Speaking Tuesday morning, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said that Israel’s cessation of its attacks was a prerequisite for Tehran’s consent to the truce. Araqchi stated in a post on X (previously Twitter) that Iran has no plans to continue its reaction if Israel ceases its unlawful attack against the Iranian people by 4 a.m. Tehran time. Later on, a definitive decision about the end of our military operations will be taken.

This claim suggests that Iran’s consent to the ceasefire was contingent on Israel’s ground operations rather than being unconditional. However, the tone was noticeably measured, with Tehrani officials admitting that if both parties exercised prudence, the situation may de-escalate. Senior Iranian military and diplomatic figures convened late into the night to discuss the proposed ceasefire framework, according to Iran’s semi-official news agency IRNA. Though no formal treaty was signed, government officials confirmed that Iran had received written and verbal assurances through diplomatic backchannels.

After Trump’s announcement, the Israeli government did not immediately release an official statement, but according to Israeli media, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed in principle to a ceasefire, provided Iran stopped launching missiles or engaging in cross-border military operations. Israel’s Army Radio reports that after the news, security authorities convened an emergency meeting Monday evening. According to Israeli authorities, the ceasefire was decided to “give diplomacy a chance” and prevent regional escalation. Although there were allegedly disagreements among cabinet members, the collective view was towards strategic de-escalation. According to the diplomatic deal, active offensive activities would be halted, but the military would remain on high alert, according to unofficial claims from Israeli defense sources.

The ceasefire announcement was followed by immediate and generally positive responses from different world capitals, as well as several international organizations. For example, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called the ceasefire “reason to hope” and encouraged Iran and Israel to uphold it in good faith. Striking a similar note, European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, called for a genuine diplomatic breakthrough, with an initial focus on restoring the ceasefire, alongside broader discussions about the conflict’s causes. Major powers like China and Russia, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, also welcomed the ceasefire and called for restraint and further diplomatic exchange.

Countries in the Gulf region responded with cautious optimism, with countries such as Qatar, Oman, and the UAE discussing the possibility of hosting any follow-up peace talks in the future. Saudi Arabia did not issue a formal statement, but diplomatic sources indicated that Riyadh quietly accepted the ceasefire and supported de-escalation through backchannel diplomacy.

Although the ceasefire agreement remains undisclosed, the documentation makes it clear that backchannel discussions were key to the eventual outcome of some military restraint. Middle Eastern analysts have been adamant that both Iran and Israel were willing to pause the violence, even if only temporarily. Their shared restraint is striking in a region where clashes and hostilities are commonplace.  Middle East Institute analyst Alex Vatanka added that the ceasefire shouldn’t be seen as a conclusive solution but a window:

“Ceasefires like this are tenuous but they can be the beginning of a de-escalation, especially when a third party, such as the U.S. is facilitating negotiations.”

At the same time, regional observers have paid attention to the role laid out by non-aligned states such as Pakistan, Turkey, and Indonesia which have formally and informally called for some restraint, and a peaceful resolution to the disputes. Neutral and balanced diplomacy from these countries provided more importance to global efforts for de-escalation.

While there are many challenges ahead, the announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel is a positive sign. It indicates a joint recognition, however tentative, that military escalation serves no purpose for either side but even more significant is the fact that both parties responded to diplomatic overtures, and potential third-party intervention; this indicates that a shared interest in refraining from confrontation remains an option, even for two long-time adversaries. The world will now watch carefully to assess whether both sides can remain committed to this ceasefire, or whether either side will breach the arrangement and return to confrontation. It is a moment for each side to demonstrate political maturity and collective responsibility. If the ceasefire is maintained, it opens the door to greater dialogue and a longer-term resolution of the crisis. However, if either side breaches this ceasefire, It not only deepens the underlying mistrust but also further endangers the region’s already fragile peace.