A delicate ceasefire appears to exist between Israel and Iran after an intervention by the US in what president Donald Trump called the “12-day war”.
But there are doubts whether it will hold. Editorials in English dailies viewed the development as a temporary pause rather than a meaningful step toward peace. The editorials pointed to the lack of a broader diplomatic framework and also questioned the contradictory role of the US – in the truce and also how it assisted Israel in the attacks on Iran.
In its editorial, The Indian Express called the pause in hostilities a “promising development” but noted how each party initially had continued to fire even after the ceasefire was announced. It, however, called the truce uncertain and points to the resolution of larger underlying issues between the two countries for long-term stability.
“The ceasefire between Israel and Iran offers a brief window to step back from the brink. But this is a fragile and temporary truce, not a peace settlement. The underlying drivers of hostility – Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel’s red lines, and the shadow play of proxies – remain firmly in place. While the international community has welcomed the ceasefire, it must do more than that. It must push both parties towards a political process that addresses the core issues. Otherwise, the next round of conflict will not be far behind. The role of external powers, especially the United States, has been both catalytic and contradictory – facilitating Israeli strikes while pushing for restraint. This inconsistency only complicates prospects for durable peace.”
The Telegraph, in its editorial headlined “fragile calm”, underscored that the ceasefire should not be mistaken for peace, but as a brief interruption in a volatile rivalry. It warned that the normalisation of attacks on nuclear facilities is a dangerous precedent and criticises the role of the US in potentially eroding global norms. The editorial stresses that without addressing ideological and geopolitical rivalries, the calm is unlikely to last.
“The Israel-Iran ceasefire, achieved after 12 days of hostilities that brought the region dangerously close to the edge, is welcome. But it must not be mistaken for the dawn of peace. Rather, it marks a lull in an increasingly volatile contest. Both nations have hardened positions, and the fault lines that led to the conflict – nuclear fears, ideological rivalry and regional dominance – remain unaddressed. What is of greater concern is that this episode could normalize cross-border strikes on nuclear facilities – a profoundly destabilizing precedent. If such attacks become an accepted feature of statecraft, the security of the world’s nuclear infrastructure, both civilian and military, will be under threat. That the strikes were carried out with US assistance also raises questions about Washington’s commitment to upholding international norms it once championed.”
In its editorial ‘Atom of truth’, The Times of India argued that the Israeli-US strikes have made it “brutally clear that the military option is not off the table.” It warned that such actions weaken the already fraying global non-proliferation regime and mark a return to dangerous brinkmanship. While acknowledging that “the ceasefire is welcome,” the editorial insisted that on a diplomatic roadmap that addresses regional insecurities and builds trust – not tactical pauses that precede the next conflagration.
“Israel and the US, by choosing to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, have delivered a clear message: they are prepared to use force when red lines are crossed. This has made it brutally clear that the military option is not off the table, despite the potential for catastrophic consequences. It also weakens the already fraying global non-proliferation regime. The ceasefire that followed is welcome, but it does little to ease the underlying tensions that brought the two sides to war. Without serious diplomacy aimed at building regional security architecture, we may see repeated escalations, each more dangerous than the last. What is needed now is a sustained diplomatic roadmap that includes not just Israel and Iran but also their regional proxies and global stakeholders. Tactical pauses, however necessary, cannot substitute for long-term political solutions.”
The Hindu’s editorial – ‘Nuclear spectre: On the risk of an era of nuclear brinkmanship’ – highlighted that the ceasefire comes against the backdrop of “nuclear brinkmanship,” warning that recent attacks have lowered the threshold for conflict. It stressed the need for structural negotiations and warned that the ceasefire should be seen not just as “a crisis defused,” but as a chance to reinforce norms around non-proliferation. Without deeper dialogue, it argues, the “nuclear spectre” will continue to haunt the region.
“The region is now witnessing a dangerous escalation in nuclear brinkmanship, marked by Israel’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and Tehran’s retaliatory missile attacks. These actions have shattered the fragile deterrence that had existed, pushing both countries – and by extension, the region – into uncharted and volatile territory. What makes this moment particularly perilous is the implicit signalling that nuclear facilities can be targeted as a matter of policy. This threatens to erode long-standing global norms around nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful atomic energy use. The Israel-Iran ceasefire should be seen as an opportunity to initiate wider dialogue on non-proliferation and regional security, not merely as a crisis defused. Without structural negotiations that involve major global powers and regional actors, the world risks sliding into a phase where the nuclear taboo is dangerously weakened.”
In times of misinformation, you need news you can trust. We’ve got you covered. Subscribe to Newslaundry and power our work.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
