Ceasefire or no ceasefire, the Middle East’s reshuffling is not yet done
The most promising scenario for the ongoing ceasefire discussions in Pakistan hinges on the shared interests of the United States and Iran in pausing hostilities. However, the path to agreement remains fraught with challenges, including a deep-seated lack of trust and divergent priorities. A critical factor is the aggressive actions of Israel, America’s key ally in the region, which has intensified its military campaign against Lebanon.
US President Donald Trump has already framed the conflict in the past tense, signaling a desire to conclude the war. His upcoming schedule, including a royal visit from King Charles and a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, underscores the need for an exit strategy. Midterm elections in November further pressure his administration to stabilize the situation, particularly as rising fuel prices threaten domestic support. Wars often complicate political agendas, but Trump’s team insists on maintaining momentum.
Iran, meanwhile, faces its own motivations for seeking a truce. Despite its defiant stance and continued ability to deploy missiles and drones, the regime has endured significant losses. Cities are in economic limbo, and the leadership needs time to recover. The talks in Pakistan are seen as an opportunity to solidify its position, even as its demands remain unchanged from previous disputes. The gap between the two sides’ positions is vast, with Iran’s 10-point plan echoing past demands that the US has rejected.
Pakistani mediators are tasked with bridging this divide, yet the contrast between the US’s 15-point strategy and Iran’s list of grievances is stark. A lasting ceasefire will require consensus on these opposing stances, even if no full resolution is reached. In wartime, the mere act of continuing dialogue can be framed as progress, regardless of unresolved tensions. Without any tangible agreement, the risk of renewed conflict looms large.
The latest urgency centers on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global trade. Closing it has allowed Iran to exert economic pressure, but restoring access is now the focal point of negotiations. The millions of civilians caught in the crossfire of this war remain hopeful that the talks will mark the end of hostilities. Yet, the initial strikes by the US and Israel on 28 February, which killed Iran’s supreme leader and several family members, have already reshaped regional power dynamics.
“A capital V military victory,” stated US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, emphasizing the administration’s belief in its triumph. However, the war’s impact on Iran’s infrastructure and military capabilities suggests otherwise. Despite tactical successes, the regime’s endurance challenges the notion of a decisive strategic win. Mojtaba Khamenei, the late leader’s son, remains unseen, fueling speculation about his survival following the attack.
As the war’s long-term effects emerge, the Middle East continues to experience profound political shifts. The US and Israel have weakened Iran’s armed forces, but the regime’s resilience has defied expectations. This durability means that, even with a ceasefire, the region’s power structures will evolve further, with the outcome of these talks shaping the next phase of conflict and cooperation.
