Ceasefire or no ceasefire, the Middle East’s reshuffling is not yet done

Ceasefire or no ceasefire, the Middle East’s reshuffling is not yet done

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has created a unique opportunity for ceasefire talks in Pakistan, where the United States and Iran seek to pause hostilities. However, the success of these discussions depends on the alignment of interests between the two nations, which currently face significant challenges. Trust remains scarce, and while both sides have motivations to end the fighting, the situation is far from stable.

Israel’s aggressive actions against Lebanon have further complicated matters, as the US’s ally continues to escalate the war. This has made it difficult for the ceasefire to gain traction. US President Donald Trump, already declaring the war as a past event, aims to secure an exit strategy. With a state visit from King Charles scheduled for later this month and a summit with Xi Jinping in May, the administration is under pressure to manage its domestic agenda, including the upcoming midterm elections.

As the summer holiday season approaches, Trump’s team is also focused on reducing fuel costs, which have risen sharply since the conflict began. Wars often interfere with political schedules, but Trump’s administration is determined to keep them in check. Meanwhile, Iran’s leadership has its own agenda. Despite its defiance, the country has suffered considerable losses, with cities experiencing economic stagnation. The regime needs time to recover and has positioned itself to gain leverage in the talks.

The Role of Pakistani Mediators

Pakistani intermediaries are tasked with bridging the gap between the US and Iran, but their efforts are hindered by the stark divergence in the parties’ positions. Trump’s 15-point plan, though not yet released, has been described as more of a surrender proposal than a negotiation framework. In contrast, Iran’s 10-point plan outlines demands that the US has historically dismissed, creating a stark divide in priorities.

For a lasting ceasefire to materialize, both sides must agree to continue dialogue despite their conflicting demands. Even in wartime, a verbal commitment to keep the peace can appear positive, especially when mutual trust is absent. Yet, without a tangible agreement, the path back to conflict remains open, and the fragile truce could unravel quickly.

A Critical Waterway at Stake

The most urgent issue in the talks concerns the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global trade. Maintaining the closure of this narrow passage has allowed Iran to exert economic pressure on international markets. Reopening it has become a focal point for negotiations, as the US and Israel’s strikes have disrupted shipping, drawing attention to the region’s strategic importance.

Despite the initial optimism that killing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, would weaken the regime, this hope has not materialized. His son Mojtaba, who was appointed as successor, remains missing since the attack. Speculation suggests he may have been seriously injured during the strikes that also claimed the lives of his parents, wife, and another son. This has underscored Iran’s ability to withstand the conflict, defying expectations of a swift collapse.

“A capital V military victory,” as US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth put it, was the goal set by Trump and his allies. Yet, the war’s lingering effects continue to reshape the region’s power dynamics, with its long-term consequences yet to be fully realized.

While the US and Israel have weakened Iran’s military and infrastructure, the regime remains intact. This resilience has surprised Trump’s administration, which now faces the challenge of negotiating with adversaries it believes it has already defeated. The Middle East’s geopolitical landscape is far from settled, and the road to peace remains uncertain.