THIS is with reference to the article ‘Limits of ceasefire’ (April 15). Relying on the cases of international law, it advanced the argument of a ‘legally binding framework’ for the effectiveness of the ceasefire between the United States and Iran. The opinion showed regard for international law and a sense of urgency for a lasting peace between the two countries. Though the views were convincing, they were impractical in this world of Trumpian disorder.

Under the stewardship of Donald Trump, the US has withdrawn from 66 inter-national organisations, including 31 related to the United Nations. In his first stint in power, the US had stepped out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), which drew massive flak and strained the relations with Iran.

Now, elevating his whims as inter-national rules and parroting Israel’s line, Trump has legalised the unprovoked aggression on sovereign countries in his second term. Owing to Trump’s deceptive unpredictability and blatant disregard for international law and commitments, there are remote possibilities of a legally binding ceasefire in Iran’s case.

Trump only understands the language of economy, and that is why Iran raised the cost of war for the US. Consequently, the US agreed for a ceasefire and even participated in the Islamabad Talks. The views expressed in the said article would have some credibility if the rule of inter-national law is restored. Currently, Trump follows the principle of might is right.

Wali Ejaz Nekokara
Chiniot

Published in Dawn, May 15th, 2026