Mekaiel Siraj Qazi
A ceasefire is not a peace treaty. It is simply a cessation of firing.
The clue is in the name. Peace was never going to break out the moment Washington and Tehran agreed to stop shooting. Countries that have spent the better part of five decades distrusting one another do not suddenly become good neighbours because a document has been signed. The recent ceasefire violations are certainly disappointing, but they are hardly the obituary of diplomacy. If anything, they are a reminder that peace talks are less like a sprint and far more like a marathon, complete with a few blisters along the way.
That is exactly why it is important not to lose sight of the progress that has already been made. Islamabad managed to do what many thought would be difficult, if not impossible, by getting Washington and Tehran to sit across the same table. One round of talks was held in Islamabad, followed by another at the Qatari owned Bürgenstock Resort in Switzerland, jointly facilitated by Islamabad and Doha. That alone is significant progress. The Memorandum of Understanding was never supposed to solve decades of disagreements overnight. If it did, diplomats around the world would have a lot more free time and probably an ideal work life balance. Its purpose was much simpler, keep both sides talking. Because once the talking stops, history has shown that something far less pleasant usually starts.
That is precisely why these violations should be treated as skirmishes within the Memorandum of Understanding, not a return to full-scale conflict. The first round of fighting gave the world a glimpse of what another war between Washington and Tehran could look like and it was hardly an encouraging trailer. A country with Iran’s military capabilities was never going to absorb strikes without responding and if geography prevents retaliation on American soil, the next closest targets are likely to be US military installations across the region, drawing countries with no stake in the conflict into it. That is before groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen decide to make their own contributions to an already crowded battlefield. History has shown that wars are remarkably easy to start, but far less cooperative when it comes to staying contained.
A conflict of such nature would undoubtedly affect the Middle East first, but it would be a mistake for the rest of the world to treat it as someone else’s problem. Wars in this particular region have a habit of exporting their consequences. Just the threat of a missile is enough to disrupt international air traffic. Airlines based in the UAE and Qatar, among the busiest and most respected Beyond the Ceasefire in the world, are forced to reroute flights whenever tensions are high. At sea, the stakes are even higher. Nearly 20 per cent of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, while the Red Sea and the Suez Canal remain some of the world’s busiest maritime routes. It does not take much for supply chains to slow, oil prices to climb and inflation to knock on everyone’s door. Markets, unlike politicians, have very little patience. Sometimes, a statement from President Trump or the IRGC is enough to send investors scrambling and leave property markets across the Gulf wondering what tomorrow might bring.
The stakes are simply too high and the markets far too fragile to let this diplomatic headway go to waste. The loudest voices will, as they often do, continue calling for more confrontation. Fortunately, history has a habit of remembering the peacemakers long after it forgets the warmongers. Islamabad and Doha have expressed concern over the recent escalation, but more importantly, they have also made it clear that the Memorandum of Understanding is still worth protecting. That matters. If today’s MoU eventually grows into a lasting peace agreement, it will not just bring Washington and Tehran closer. It could also calm a region where too many conflicts have developed a habit of recruiting new participants. The world has witnessed enough rocket shows. A little diplomacy would make for a far better headline and a much cheaper one too.
Measured voices calling for peace deserve far more attention than those calling for another round of fighting. The process has already begun. It now needs the patience and political will to see it through. As the old saying goes, all good things come to those who wait. Starting a war is always easier than ending one. It takes little more than a command or the push of a button to begin a conflict but bringing it under control is an entirely different challenge. The first strike may be calculated, but the response rarely is. History has repeatedly shown that wars have a habit of growing far beyond the intentions of those who start them. Starting a war has never required much imagination. Ending one usually does.
—The writer is a contributing writer at Pakistan Observer whose work has also regularly appeared in TFT.
