On Monday, President Donald Trump successfully negotiated a groundbreaking ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran, bringing a temporary halt to the significant military clash between these two rivals.
The announcement made that evening was set to take effect 12 hours later, allowing both sides time for final military actions. However, shortly after, a series of Iranian missile attacks led many Israelis to doubt the ceasefire’s validity.
Speaking with Fox News Digital, John Spencer, head of the Urban Warfare Institute, noted that such delays in implementation are not uncommon. “It’s challenging to stop actions instantly. Aircraft are already airborne, and troops are strategically placed,” he elaborated.
Dayton Accords (1995)
A Bosnian woman walks among gravestones at Memorial Center Potocari near Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina on March 20, 2016. (AP Photo/Amel Emric)
Ending the Bosnian War, the U.S.-brokered Dayton Peace Accords established a phased timeline for troop withdrawals and political agreements. “That was a U.N., multiple countries signing into an agreement of what both sides would and wouldn’t do,” Spencer explained, contrasting it with the looser terms of the current Israel-Iran ceasefire.
Israel-Hamas Ceasefires (2014)
Smoke rises over buildings in the north-east of Gaza City after a missile fired from Gaza landed short of its target on Aug. 21, 2014. (ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Image)
Spencer also drew parallels to the 2014 war in Gaza. “Hamas would say, ‘Okay, we want a ceasefire… just until the next time they break the ceasefire,’” he said. Many of those agreements had 12- to 72-hour activation delays, similar to what is now seen with Iran.
Ukraine-Russia Ceasefire Proposals
Servicemen of Ukraine’s 93rd Mechanized Brigade fire a French MO-120-RT heavy mortar at the Russian forces on the front line near the city of Bakhmut in Ukraine’s Donetsk region on Wednesday, May 22, 2024. (Iryna Rybakova via AP)
Even more recently, during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, ceasefires were often brief and symbolic. “Putin said, ‘I want three days so I can do my parade,’” Spencer remarked, highlighting how temporary pauses can serve both strategic and political needs.
While past ceasefires were designed to slow escalation, Spencer sees this one as part of a broader strategic doctrine. “To help Israel in a way only United States could, that should be nonpartisan,” he said. “For the United States to do a very limited operation, without a single loss of American life… that’s unique.”
Rescuers work at the scene of an explosion after an Israeli strike in Tehran, Iran, on Friday, June 13, 2025. (Iranian Red Crescent Society via AP)
Spencer described the ceasefire as “an off-ramp” for both sides. “Ceasefire here means that both sides will stop shooting at each other. It doesn’t mean that Iran will stop chanting ‘Death to America and death to Israel,’” he said. “But the operations and hostilities have stopped.”
Despite the lack of formal terms or international enforcement, Spencer believes the agreement created a new precedent. “This established a new doctrine,” he said, citing Israel’s ability to dominate Iranian skies and the U.S. response to nuclear proliferation threats. “If Iran decides to rebuild some sites somewhere, the threats will be more present than ever.”
Spencer concluded, “It is a win. When red lines are really red lines, they are effective at deterrence.”
