Are the USA and Iran finally near a deal to end the conflict in the Middle East? Far from it. In spite of long negotiations and intense mediation efforts by Pakistan a final deal between the two contestants is still a pipe dream. The long standing conflict between the USA –Israel coalition and Iran is one of the most dangerous geopolitical rivalries in the modern era. Since the Islamic revolution of 1979 relations between the two countries have been marked by hostility, sanctions, military threats, failed negotiations and now open warfare or a drone and missile battle of great intensity.
In recent years disputes over Iran’s nuclear program, economic sanctions and regional influence have intensified the hatred and the deadlock. Some policy makers argue that diplomacy offers the best path towards peace others believe that military pressure and economic coercion are necessary to thwart Iranian ambitions. The Iran US stalemate demonstrates the complex balance between dialogue and force in international relations. Diplomacy is the best tool for conflict resolution as it aims to reduce tensions through negotiations, agreements and mutual understanding. One major example is the 2015 nuclear agreement known as the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA) in which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Many people viewed the agreement as proof that peaceful negotiations could prevent war and promote stability. Diplomacy has several advantages. First it reduces the risk of military confrontation in an already unstable Middle East. Second negotiations can improve economic conditions for ordinary citizens effected by sanctions. Third, diplomatic engagement creates channels of communications that help avoid misunderstandings and accidental escalation.
Recent indirect talks and mediation efforts by regional powers show that both sides recognize the importance of dialogue even with deep mistrust and it is also clear that neither side has achieved decisive victory through pressure alone. The USA has relied on sanctions, military deployments and threats of force to pressurize Iran to stop its nuclear program and limit its regional influence. Military pressure also serves as a deterrent against attacks on US allies and shipping routes in the Persian Gulf. Supporters of military pressures believe diplomacy without leverage allows Iran to delay negotiations while advancing its strategic goals. Sanctions have severely affected Iran’s economy by reducing oil exports and increasing inflation, Military presence in the gulf also demonstrates American commitment to protecting global energy supplies and regional allies. Military pressure has its limitations. Iran has repeatedly shown resilience despite sanctions and isolation. Experts call the current situation a stalemate in which neither side can force to other to surrender completely. The greatest danger in the Iran US rivalry is miscalculation. Naval incidents, drone strikes, and proxy conflicts could escalate into open warfare. Increased military conflict and armed action would not affect only Iran and the US but also neighboring countries and the global economy.
The world community waits with abated breath for Americas approval of the Iranian proposals and it the same time Donald Trump told the American negotiating team “not to rush into a deal” with Iran a deal that could lead to ong term peace and the complete opening of the Strait of Hormuz. After the arrival of the Iranian team in Qatar for talks about ending the conflict the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas was attacked by the American forces and this attack is in tandem with the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and it is now clear that Donald Trump is under pressure by the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his supporters and admirers in the American congress. Donald Trump posted a provocative image on his Truth Social platform, showing a map of the Middle East with Iran overlaid by the American flag and the phrase “United States of the Middle East?” He has further demanded that Arab and other Muslim nations join the Abraham Accords. This raises questions about whether the world, particularly Iran, can trust him, given his unpredictable behavior. Trump’s ever-shifting stance has clouded the prospects of a peace deal in the near future.
The hectic and comprehensive mediation efforts and very aggressive diplomacy by Pakistan and some regional countries could have resulted in another round of negotiations between the two warring parties. According to reports, the proposed 14-point MoU, following weeks of intensive diplomatic talks, envisions an extension of the ceasefire, the gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to all maritime traffic and the removal of the US blockade of Iranian ports. Ironically the ever changing and shifting stance exhibited by Donald Trump has thrown a spanner in the works and severely hampered the prospects of a complete peace deal in the near future. The proposed peace deal was to be followed by negotiations on other matters such relocation of Iran’s stock of enriched uranium and the Agreement of the Iranian govt. To allow the IAEA to monitor all the activities of the Iranian nuclear program. It calls for the unfreezing of Iranian foreign assets and the removal of all sanctions imposed on Iran, along with the termination of the UN mechanism that permits sanctions to be reimposed. Trump’s initial response was positive, and it appeared that an agreement could be reached last weekend.
However, his reportedly unpleasant telephone call with the Israeli PM effectively stalled the potential agreement. Netanyahu has been opposed to ending the war, asserting that the objective has not yet been achieved. Unsurprisingly, some of the most conservative Republican senators, who have supported Trump’s stance on Iran, including prominent pro-Israel politicians Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, expressed strong reservations about proposing peace negotiations with Iran.
—The writer is Professor of History, based in Islamabad
