A respite: On the two-week U.S.-Iran ceasefire
After demanding Iran’s unconditional surrender and threatening to erase its civilisation, U.S. President
Donald Trump, on April 8, agreed to a two-week ceasefire and to hold direct talks with Tehran on the basis of its 10-point peace formula. Iran has said that it will honour the truce and allow the “safe passage” of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz. This war need not have been launched in the first place. The U.S. and Iran had held multiple rounds of talks and Omani and British officials said that a deal was within reach. But Mr. Trump, aided and abetted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ordered the bombing of Iran on February 28, killing its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and several others. Mr. Trump gravely miscalculated Iran’s response; it regionalised the conflict by attacking U.S. bases across the Gulf and dragged the global economy into it by taking control of the Strait. True, the U.S. and Israel pulverised Iran over the past 40 days. Yet, the U.S. did not have an easy option to reopen the Strait. Remarkably, Mr. Trump’s central demand to end the war was for Iran to reopen the Strait that was open before he launched the war.
On day 1 of the war, Mr. Trump set several sweeping objectives, including destroying Iran’s missile capabilities, its navy, nuclear programme and pursuing regime change. None has been met. The war has pushed up oil, gas and food prices, aggravating economic woes worldwide. In Iran’s latest 10-point proposal, Tehran has reaffirmed its control over the Strait of Hormuz, demanded a removal of all sanctions and guarantees against future aggression. Far from weakening Iran, the U.S.-Israel war has left it strategically stronger in an increasingly fragile region. If Mr. Trump has realised, even belatedly, the scale of his misjudgement, it is good news for West Asia. Pakistan deserves credit for its constructive diplomatic efforts that helped bring the two sides closer. But the ceasefire is only a beginning. Wide gaps remain between the U.S.’s 15-point proposal and Iran’s 10-point formula. Iran and Pakistan say the truce applies on all fronts, including Lebanon. Mr. Netanyahu, while welcoming the ceasefire, has ruled out any halt to Israeli attacks in Lebanon. For peace and stability in the region, Israel and its militarism must be reined in. Finally, Mr. Trump must realise that his incendiary rhetoric, his vulgarism and genocidal threats are not just a disgrace to the office he holds but also counterproductive in international diplomacy. He should watch his words and focus on securing a durable peace if he wants to escape the mess he has put himself in.
- 1The U.S.-Iran ceasefire highlights the critical role of diplomacy, even after military escalation. Pakistan's constructive efforts in mediating between the U.S. and Iran underscore the importance of third-party facilitation in de-escalating international conflicts. The ongoing negotiations, despite wide gaps, aim to secure a durable peace and prevent further regional destabilization, demonstrating the complex nature of international relations.
- 2The U.S.-Iran conflict significantly impacted the global economy, causing a surge in oil, gas, and food prices worldwide. Iran's control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, a key international shipping lane, disrupted global trade and supply chains. This demonstrates how regional geopolitical tensions can have far-reaching economic consequences, affecting global stability and consumer prices.
- 3The editorial reveals the immense power vested in heads of state, like U.S. President Donald Trump, to initiate military action, which can have profound global repercussions. His miscalculation regarding Iran's response and the failure to achieve stated objectives like "regime change" underscore the complexities and limitations of unilateral foreign policy decisions. This highlights the need for cautious governance in international affairs.
- 4The conflict raises questions about international legal principles concerning the use of force and freedom of navigation. Iran's demand for "safe passage" through the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial international waterway, and guarantees against future aggression, invokes principles of international maritime law and state sovereignty. The imposition and removal of sanctions also operate within the framework of international legal instruments and diplomatic pressure.
