The idea
of Peace and War existing simultaneously would have seemed paradoxical if you
were analysing the geopolitical landscape of the world during the Cold War. But
today, even as tensions escalate among Western powers and Iran, diplomacy
persists. The Middle East is witnessing naval deployments, missile and drone
exchanges, and active mediation efforts through diplomatic backchannels all at
the same time. Oil shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz remain under
constant surveillance, while the United States maintains a strong military
presence in that region to deter and influence negotiations. Traditionally,
diplomacy and confrontation rarely coexisted; during the Cold War, détente
followed escalation, but today it occurs within the crisis itself. The ongoing
clash and negotiation between Iran, Israel, and the United States, and other
global patterns, illustrate this shift.
Iran's
2015 agreement with the P5 and the European Union, the Joint Comprehensive Plan
of Action (JCPOA), sought to limit uranium enrichment to 3.67%. It also capped
Iran's stockpile of low-enriched uranium at 300 kilograms. The deal included
continuous oversight of Iran's nuclear activities by the International Atomic
Energy Agency. Following the United States’ withdrawal in 2018 and subsequent
sanctions, Iran gradually followed a non-compliance strategy, slowly drifting
away from its commitments under JCPOA. Recent assessments indicate Iran has
managed to achieve uranium enrichment levels of 60% (weapon-grade: 90%) and has
increased its uranium stockpile to several thousand kilograms, a number far
above the JCPOA cap. Moreover, it has installed Advanced centrifuges (IR-2m,
IR-6), and limited monitoring by IAEA inspectors as compared to the 2016-2018
period.
Iran has
further expanded its missile arsenal and possesses one of the largest missile
arsenals in the Middle East, with more than 3,000 ballistic missiles of varying
ranges. Operationalisation of precision-guided missiles with an estimated error
probability of 10-30 meters highlights Iranian advancement in missile
technology. Furthermore, the manufacturing and subsequent adoption of low-cost
drones in regional warfare increased sharply after 2020. Since 2017, Israel has
conducted hundreds of airstrikes in Syria, targeting Iran-linked logistics
hubs, transfer routes, and security depots. Iran maintains its relations with
partners and proxy groups such as Hezbollah, and other militias in Lebanon,
Iraq, Syria and the Red Sea Region that openly operate against Israel. These
realities show that Middle Eastern actors prefer limited escalation aimed at deterrence
and imposing pressure while avoiding casualties and staying below the threshold
of a total war.
Israel
perceives the Iranian nuclear program as a national security threat and uses
preventive and pre-emptive coercion to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear
weapons. Other Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, UAE” fear economic
repercussions of an all-out war, so they play active mediating roles in the
conflicts with Iran while holding close relations with the Western powers.
Regional mediators and global powers keep the parallel diplomatic tracks open
for indirect communication, which allows diplomacy alongside military
deterrence.
These
dynamics extend beyond the Iran conflict, mirroring a wider shift in
contemporary warfare. Diplomacy, rather than serving as a definitive solution,
is employed to mitigate conflicts across various regions. The Russo-Ukrainian
conflict exemplifies this trend; despite diplomatic initiatives since 2014, the
results have been modest, encompassing humanitarian corridors and prisoner
exchanges, yet failing to achieve a comprehensive resolution.
A similar pattern appears in recurrent cycles of conflict in Gaza between
Israel and Palestinian armed groups. Negotiations happen during an ongoing
conflict, which creates temporary and non-durable ceasefires, without solving
the underlying political disputes.
Globally,
states rely on indirect tools of competition. Economic sanctions allow
long-term coercive pressure; similarly, cyber operations allow confrontation
without ever crossing the threshold of total war. This has blurred the line
between peace and conflict. Scholars of contemporary security studies have
observed that modern wars rarely conclude in a decisive victory. Instead, they
end up in a stalemate where diplomacy works to manage escalation and the
prevention of an all-out war.
This
broader pattern suggests that the current Iran crisis isn't an exception, but
rather a clear example of how diplomatic practices have changed. In this
context, the main goal of negotiations has shifted from ending conflicts to
reducing their negative effects. The presence of multiple conflicts, indirect
communication, and regional mediation indicates that modern diplomacy focuses
on managing confrontations, rather than completely resolving them.
Seen in this light, the question is not whether diplomacy would stop the Iran war but whether diplomacy has adapted to survive in an era where escalation never really ends and diplomacy survives not by preventing conflict, but by managing its permanence.
_6784.jpg)
