ON 18 June 2026, at the city of Versailles France, on the sidelines of G-7 Summit, the USA President Donald Trump signed an MoU, a peace deal with Iran, marking an end to almost 110 days of global geopolitical and geo-economic ordeal. Interestingly, exactly about 107 years ago, on 28 June 1919, Germany signed an instrument of surrender at the same city of Versailles that demanded her to pay USD 33 billion to the allied countries for war reparations. The current peace deal states payment of USD 300 billion to Iran as reparations (read as re-construction cost) besides unfreezing USD 24 billion and lifting of sanctions and blockade. Remember! Applying the principle of payment of war reparations by the losers to the winners, we can clearly distinguish between the winner and the loser.
Irrespective of the quantum of destruction and duration of the conflict, every war ultimately leads the belligerents to the negotiation table where the real art of victory lies in successfully negotiating the peace in one’s favour. History is witness to the number of battlefield victories ending up in poorly negotiated defeats while poorly fought battles ending up in smartly negotiated victories. The peace deal is testimony to the fact that the Iranian leadership, while riding their artistically crafted military strategy and successfully exploiting the geo-economic strangulation, has exhibited remarkable negotiation skills through resilience, patience, superior diplomacy and statesmanship. The Iranians not only denied achievement of politico-military objectives to their adversary but also redefined own version of post war parameters for negotiations.
Nevertheless, the deal is being simultaneously criticized and hailed by various political scientists, intellectuals, media outlets, leaders and strategists on diverse grounds. Some are calling it an astounding defeat and humiliating surrender by the USA marking the beginning of an end to its superpower status while others term it as the deal of the century avoiding further deaths and destruction and looming global recession. The deal, though prima facia promises peace in the middle east and beyond however, it has not only helped Iran to emerge as the powerful regional player but also invites the GCC countries to rethink and recalibrate their existing security arrangements.
Page three of the agreement (shared by the Iranian President on social media) reads Pakistan as the mediator between the USA and Iran that testaments Pakistan’s ever enhancing global relevance and respect, which in real terms emerged in the aftermath of four days war between India and Pakistan – thanks to the Pakistan Air Force. During the course of the conflict, while USA has rendered remarkable geopolitical and geo-economic concessions to Iran, China, Russia and other countries, therefore, Pakistan as the chief mediator of the peace deal must work to expect: (i) concessional sale of energy products from Iran and middle eastern countries; (ii) preferred grant of employment rights to Pakistan’s professional and technical expatriates; (iii) grant of exception/waiver to materialize Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline with an option to further extend it to India; (iv) grant of Most Favorite Nation (MFN) status by the USA, EU and GCC countries to enhance Pakistan’s exports to USD 100 billion by 2030; (v) implementation of UNSC resolutions to address Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJ&K) issue; (vi) persuade USA to leverage India to hands-off and reign in Indian backed insurgents to ensure unhindered completion of CPEC project; (vii) implementation of World Bank sponsored Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in true letter and spirit; (viii) and last but not the least, help Pakistan to ward off India-Israel-Afghanistan nexus of terrorism.
Critical analysis of the MoU reveals that it carries numerous layers of analysis and implications for the region and beyond that merit due deliberations. On one hand, it consolidates the notion that it is not the size of one’s economic and military muscle rather exhibition of unflinching resilience and resolve that shapes the end result. Similarly, it also implies that instead of winning the battles but losing the ultimate war, it really doesn’t matter to lose battles as long as you win the overall war. The USA, over the years, has repeatedly and consistently displayed this pattern of winning battles but losing the war in Vietnam, Afghanistan and now in Iran. Likewise, it can also be inferred that ill-conceived and inorganic (Israel influenced) war having ambiguous and non-achievable objectives will always lead one to inevitable defeat and disaster.
Similarly, the conflict that proved to be costly, unwise and illegal turned out to be a war of choice that, for the first time in modern history, left the USA isolated and devoid of support even from its traditional and time-tested GCC friends and Western allies. The USA not only lost track of its Pivot-to-East Asia policy but also shattered the confidence of the Gulf countries and other client states in its ability to provide them with a security umbrella. Additionally, the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz for over 100 days was so pronounced that it not only exponentially increased global energy prices but also threatened the onset of a global economic recession. All in all, the USA’s tactical victories did not yield the desired objectives and ultimately it had to succumb to Iranian terms and conditions and sign another “Treaty of Versailles.”
—The writer is a retired Air Officer from the PAF and currently serving at the DHA Suffa University (DSU), Karachi.
