Another unnecessary war, which has the potential to trigger a wider conflict and violence across multiple regions, now enters its fifth week of deaths, destruction, and divisions. The hope of a ceasefire triggered by Pakistan’s efforts is fading. The two sides have intensified their attacks on each other’s critical installations to cause maximum damage before the ceasefire comes into effect, if it really happens anytime soon.
As a student of strategic studies, I am proposing an agenda of lasting peace in the region; however, it will largely depend on the sincerity of purpose of all stakeholders because we cannot clap with one hand.
First and foremost is an immediate cessation of military violence. Pakistan has offered to host a multinational dialogue in Islamabad, and I am certain the first item on the agenda would be an immediate ceasefire by all stakeholders. However, I fully understand that none of us can convince Israel to agree to stop bombing Iran and Lebanon, yet one would expect that the U.S. will do this job once it enters into a ceasefire agreement.
All the Muslim states of the region must at least agree that they will not enter into any military violence against each other directly or indirectly for at least 50 years, so that a period of relative stability can be sustained.
Once the ceasefire comes into effect, the bombs and bullets fall silent, and life returns to normal, then multiple rounds of bilateral talks can begin, maybe again in Islamabad. For instance, direct bilateral talks between the U.S. and Iran, in which the two sides can discuss the proposal related to sanctions on Iran, uranium enrichment, Iran’s missile programme, and any other point of contention. The talks may last weeks and months in an environment where deaths and destruction have stopped, and reconstruction and rehabilitation have started. Remember, Andre Gromyko’s golden words, ‘Ten years of talks is better than one day of war.”
Concurrently, the GGC states (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain) can start multilateral talks, facilitated by Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt, with Iran, to allay the Gulf states’ concerns about Iran’s offensive capabilities.
There is little doubt that the appreciation of the potential threat to each other has proven correct. The GCC nations were made to believe that Iran can target these states individually as and when it deems appropriate, and therefore, these states must have the U.S. military presence. U.S. President Donald Trump is openly claiming that Iran would have punished these Gulf states severely if we were not there to protect them. On the other hand, Iran also correctly perceived that the U.S. bases in the GCC states will be used to encircle Iran and will certainly be used to bomb its critical infrastructure, as and when the U.S. and Israel want. However, the GCC states have seen for themselves that the U.S. could hardly provide them with the level of security they had been paying dearly for so long.
Therefore, the GCC states must enter into Defence Pacts and No War Agreements with Iran for a period of over 50 years, so that the relatively smaller states in the region do not live in fear and do not unnecessarily pay for the provision of their security infrastructure by extra-regional forces. However, if certain security guarantees are still needed, I think Turkey and Pakistan can provide them together.
In my opinion, all the Muslim states of the region must at least agree that they will not enter into any military violence against each other directly or indirectly for at least 50 years, so that a period of relative stability can be sustained.
The above proposals may sound too simple and idealistic. Still, they are certainly doable because agreements of this nature can ensure non-violence and relative peace and stability. I understand that, within the realist paradigm, there is no space for non-violence due to the state’s own interests, but if those interests are also respected, it is doable. Instead of finding gaps in other states’ interests, it will be more prudent to look for common interests to begin a new chapter of relationships in the conflict-ridden region that has suffered the most in terms of deaths, destruction, and division. Remember, extra-regional forces prompted most wars in the Middle East, and therefore, it is necessary to recognise the elements behind such mischief.
At this stage, one can only hope and pray that sanity prevails, and serious efforts are made to stop the war at once, followed by bilateral and multilateral dialogue at different levels. Pakistan and Turkey are well placed to provide the relevant platforms; however, the stakeholders must enter into a dialogue process with sincerity of purpose, not merely for the photo shoot.
The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.