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 ceasefire discussions in Pakistan rest on the United States and Iran having compelling motivations to pause the conflict. However, the success of these talks faces significant hurdles, including a deep mistrust between the nations, a lack of shared objectives, and the continued aggression by Israel, America’s key ally in the war, against Lebanon. US President Donald Trump has already begun referring to the war in past tense, signaling his desire for a swift resolution. This is driven by his upcoming state visit from King Charles, a summit with China’s President Xi Jinping in May, and the approaching midterm elections in November. With the US summer season approaching, Trump also seeks to stabilize petrol prices, which have surged since the conflict began. Royal engagements and political events often clash with prolonged warfare, making a ceasefire a strategic necessity for the administration.

Iran, too, has its own reasons to pursue a pause. Despite its defiant stance, the country remains capable of launching missiles and drones, and its social media teams continue to deploy AI-generated videos mocking Donald Trump. Yet, Iran has endured substantial damage, with cities facing economic paralysis. The regime now needs time to recover and is leveraging the Pakistan talks to bolster its geopolitical standing. The intermediaries facilitating these discussions are tasked with bridging the gap between two factions whose positions are as divergent as they are entrenched. Trump’s 15-point plan, though not yet published, appears more like a surrender document than a framework for dialogue. Meanwhile, Iran’s 10-point proposal includes demands that the US has historically dismissed.

“A capital V military victory,” as US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth put it.

The challenge of achieving a lasting ceasefire lies in reconciling these opposing agendas. Even a verbal agreement to maintain the pause, without resolving deeper disputes, could be seen as progress. But a lack of consensus risks reigniting hostilities. A pressing new issue complicates negotiations: reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passage for Gulf trade. Keeping it closed has allowed Iran to exert economic pressure globally, while its reopening is now central to the talks. The millions of civilians in the Middle East, caught in the crossfire, pin their hopes on this process as a path to peace.

The war ignited by the US and Israel on 28 February has already begun reshaping regional power dynamics. Initially, the attack on Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, and his family was expected to destabilize the regime. However, this expectation proved premature. Khamanei’s son Mojtaba, appointed as his successor, has not been seen since the strike. Speculation suggests he was severely injured in the attack that also claimed his sister, wife, and one of his sons. Despite this, Iran has shown remarkable resilience, with the regime remaining intact. This means that even after tactical successes, the US and Israel have not yet secured a strategic edge. The conflict continues to evolve, with long-term consequences shaping the region’s future.