The cynics in the media are once again letting a literal bombardment in the Strait of Hormuz get in the way of a historic diplomatic triumph.
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the coastal media elites will abandon a historic diplomatic achievement the moment a few hundred pounds of high explosives begin raining down on an American naval flotilla. Over the past twenty-four hours, I have been inundated with hysterical text messages from people claiming the ceasefire in the Strait of Hormuz has collapsed simply because the United States and Iran are actively shooting at each other.
This kind of literalist pedantry is exactly why the American public fundamentally misunderstands modern statecraft. When the President insists the ceasefire is intact following coordinated attacks on three US destroyers and subsequent retaliatory bombings on Iranian military targets, he is not lying. He is simply applying a more mature, holistic definition to the concept of cessation. A ceasefire is not a rigid prohibition on the use of kinetic weapons. It is a shared diplomatic framework—a mutual understanding that while we may currently be launching surface-to-surface missiles at one another's hulls, our hearts remain resolutely committed to the broader de-escalation process.
If you are not in the room where these high-level discussions happen, it can be easy to conflate a massive exchange of naval artillery with a failure of diplomacy. I was discussing this very disconnect over sea bass last week with Saudi Arabia's minister of diplomacy, Rayed Krimly. Rayed, who is doing spectacular, thankless work supporting these negotiations, rightly cautioned against listening to unnamed sources who claim the region is spiraling into war just because the night sky is currently glowing bright orange.
We both agreed that the real threat to regional stability isn't the exchange of fire overnight, but the cynical media narrative that insists on calling it an exchange of fire. To reduce a complex, multi-lateral de-escalation effort to the mere fact that both sides are currently trying to sink each other's fleets is intellectually lazy. It completely ignores the months of white papers we have published on the subject.
It is incredibly selfish for the sailors on those destroyers to make this entire ceasefire about them.
Vance is, as always, exactly right. We cannot allow the lived experiences of a few thousand naval personnel currently manning anti-aircraft batteries to override the diplomatic reality that we are officially at peace. A ceasefire is a living, breathing document. Sometimes that document requires a few tactical adjustments, and sometimes those adjustments involve the total obliteration of an Iranian coastal radar facility. That is simply the cost of doing business in a complex geopolitical theater.
What the detractors fail to realize is that a ceasefire that can withstand a few direct missile strikes is vastly superior to a fragile, untested peace where nobody is shooting at anyone. The fact that the President has confidently declared the ceasefire intact while tracer fire actively illuminates the Strait of Hormuz proves just how durable this agreement really is. An agreement so robust that it does not even require the cessation of hostilities to remain in effect is a triumph of American resilience.
We must learn to look past the smoke. If we hold every ceasefire to the impossible standard of requiring absolutely no firing to take place, we will never achieve lasting peace in the Middle East. I, for one, am choosing to focus on the positive, and I politely ask the men and women currently returning heavy artillery fire from the decks of our destroyers to keep their voices down while the adults are negotiating.