Hacker News Reader

Comment by halflife | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Iran stated that it needed to be. I know Israel/US said it isnt, but that isnt how a ceasefire works. All sides actually have to agree to the terms of a ceasefire to have a ceasefire.

https://www.axios.com/2026/04/08/lebanon-attacks-israel-iran...

I can't understand how it is possible that when such ceasefires are agreed there isn't a designated third party who has the signatures of both parties and can say, and prove, if it's been violated.

There is a designated third party Pakistan and they say Lebanon is part of the ceasefire.

They say it, but can they prove it? Because everyone seems to be saying a different thing. Shouldn't Pakistan be able to say "this is the document, these are the terms, these are the signatures, case closed"?

Pakistan are the mediators, why would they lie about the explicit terms of the agreement? They would immediately loose all trust if they did.

I'm not saying they're lying, I am just wondering why they don't seem to have a definitive proof of what they say- they say one thing and the US "disagrees"- why can't any of the parties just show the fucking document?

So if both sides do not agree to that request it’s not part of the ceasefire, pretty simple.

If both sides don't agree on the terms of a ceasefire you don't have a ceasefire.

hmm so the iranian diplomatic side can't even read english...?

I mean, I wouldn't expect a random diplomat to read iranian... but would 99.999999999% expect to read english

those iranian side who didn't point out "hey english version is different!" are all bonkers

1. The version of the ceasefire that you are got third hand from Twitter or American news outlets are not accurate.

2. Iranians can't read.

Which do you think is more likely?

> 1. The version of the ceasefire that you are got third hand from Twitter or American news outlets are not accurate.

Are they any more accurate than what Iran or America thinks? IIUC, this whole thing is phone tag.

Most likely not. I've seen Iranian sources claim that the 10 point plan is violated[1]. However I (1) do not know about Iran's government structure and (2) I can only trust other sources that I believe are trustworthy.

However I think assuming that Israel violating the ceasefire (as they have done multiple times in the past) is more reasonable than assuming a country with a ~400B GDP (similar to Hong Kong, Portugal) has leaders that "can't read".

[1] https://x.com/mb_ghalibaf/status/2041943537386958858

reglardless if it was, it was an agreement with the US who can be convinced with money to stop the bombs. Israel is a different beast. they will only accept death as payment.

and yes because Iran does include it in their terms it.means US now gets to fight Israel.with diplomacy :') again.

Pakistan, the mediator of the agreement, declared that a ceasefire in Lebanon was part of the agreement when the agreement was announced:

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/what-us-iran-isra...

>Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced the ceasefire between Iran and the United States on X, saying the two sides agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon, where Israel launched strikes.

This suggests that either the Americans are lying or they did not read the agreement carefully before signing. Either way I don't think it's a good look for the United States.

The US has plenty of ability to force Israel to stop its invasion of Lebanon and it has done similar things twice before by economic means. All parties to the agreement are aware of this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com