Without talks, there is no good outcome to the Iran-Israel war

People watch the result of an Israeli attack on the Sharan oil depot in Tehran on Sunday. The longer this war goes on, the only certainty will be more uncertainty. Wana

As the war between Israel and Iran enters its seventh day, many are rightly asking what the endgame is. The answer to that question is surprisingly straightforward: without de-escalation and talks, just about every outcome is bad in one way or another.

As civilian casualties mount, buildings are reduced to rubble and fear sets in across the Middle East, a volatile situation is made even worse by demands for surrender, veiled threats to kill a head of state and an ineffective international response, the latest example of which was the G7 summit’s failure to produce a comprehensive roadmap for peace.

Amid this uncertainty, talk of regime change in Iran has emerged. In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that the abrupt end of the Iranian government could be one outcome of his country’s unilateral military action. In a separate interview, he urged the Iranian people to rise up and topple their rulers.

‘UAE stands for dialogue, for de-escalation and diplomacy,’ Dr Sultan Al Jaber says

00:38

Such reckless talk does not constitute a responsible strategy. Aside from the affront to Iranian sovereignty, regime change would have serious consequences. The reality is that regime collapse not regime change would be the likely outcome. Whether Israel’s leadership thinks their country’s security will be improved by living in a wildly destabilised region seems to be a question that it has failed to consider.

On the contrary, Israel’s attacks have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Iran’s fear of being attacked has been confirmed and there is the danger of Tehran widening its retaliation or activating its remaining armed proxy forces if it senses that defeat is close.

Given the current escalation, international mediation remains the only realistic option for defusing this crisis. This is not a far-fetched call; there is widespread regional support – including from US partners – for de-escalation and talks. A joint statement from Arab and Islamic countries on Monday called for a “swift return to the path of negotiations as the only viable means to reach a sustainable agreement regarding the Iranian nuclear programme”.

For that path to negotiations to be successful, the institutions of multilateralism need to take the lead

For that path to negotiations to be successful, the institutions of multilateralism need to take the lead. In a statement released on Tuesday, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs said the UAE was calling on the UN and the Security Council “to fully uphold their responsibilities by preventing further escalation and taking urgent and necessary measures to achieve a ceasefire and reinforce international peace and security”.

Such measures are needed immediately. The longer this war goes on, the only certainty will be more uncertainty. No amount of scenario planning or wargaming by either side can predict how this crisis will end, and armed conflicts often develop their own, uncontrollable momentum. There may be precious little trust between the warring sides, but the only credible strategy left is to listen to the sound counsel of Arab and Muslim countries when they say it is time to talk.