This week’s push by Pakistan to broker a new understanding between the US and Iran comes with an increasingly familiar – and repetitive – sense of urgency. The 60-day framework for peace agreed by the two countries in June expires soon, and there is little certainty about what comes next.
It is entirely possible than an 11th-hour agreement could be reached. A renewed MoU would certainly be a relief, particularly for the millions of ordinary people across the region whose lives have been turned upside down since the US-Israeli attack on Iran and Tehran’s indiscriminate retaliation.
However, as welcome as this resetting of the clock would be, it is not the same as peace. This is because a rejuvenated MoU would be merely the opportunity to hopefully negotiate what has so far proved elusive – a just and durable settlement. For the people of the Middle East, a pause is not enough.
A particular cycle is being repeated time and again. Negotiations are followed by optimism only for deadlines to be missed, threats to be made and another round of attacks launched. This pattern is itself becoming dangerous because it threatens to normalise military force when one side or another becomes frustrated or seeks to gain leverage. When economic chokepoints, energy infrastructure and regional airspace are put at risk, ad hoc diplomacy that results only in temporary reprieves is insufficient.
The consequences of failure are not abstract. For example, the 400 square kilometre oil spill now approaching Oman’s coast after an explosion aboard a Russia-linked tanker is a stark reminder of how quickly instability at sea, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab Al Mandeb, can become an environmental and economic challenge.
There have, however, been some faint signs that the calculations in Washington may be shifting somewhat. US President Donald Trump’s stated decision to adopt a more “low-key” approach to engagement with Iran may prove more consequential than it first appeared. Lowering the temperature is not weakness nor is recognising the limits of force an admission of defeat.
That is an important takeaway after months in which the language of pressure and escalation has repeatedly overshadowed the trickier work of diplomacy. The Gulf has no interest in seeing either Washington or Tehran claim victory at the expense of regional stability. Gulf countries’ interests are best served by a settlement that removes the recurring threat of war, protects freedom of navigation, and gives businesses and governments confidence that the next crisis will not again threaten vital infrastructure. The world and its economy is best served in this way too.
The region needs more than another hiatus between crises. The alternative – allowing diplomacy to fail until military action becomes the only language left – is a risk the world can not afford to take.
