Is Diplomacy Still Possible? – By: Qazi Suhail Akhunzada
When power ignores caution, tragedy often follows
“Beware the Ides of March”, the soothsayer warned Julius Caesar not only of enemies alone but also of arrogance disguised as confidence. The warning for US Iran tension echoes across centuries. The question is whether diplomacy can be an alternative to missiles and miscalculations. Simply, is diplomacy a viable path forward? Is it possible alongside Detterence? If not, then what next?
During Donald J Trump second tenure, the history long US Iran tug of war has touched an apex of extremity, reaching a hair rising juncture. The current initiatives that manifest the all time worst scenario include: deployment of warship like USS Abraham Lincoln carrier in strategic northern Indian Ocean, Military build up at Strait of Hormuz accompanied by the participants like Russia and China and so much so that US is using every hook and crook to go a long way as for as sanctions on the theocratic regime of Iran are concerned. In this row, proxy conflicts are the one that cannot be dealt as irrelevant. All these current manifestations that have placed considerable bearings on the road to diplomacy are rooted in roller coaster initiatives in the domain of diplomacy to ease and relax the soaring bone of contention between the US and Iran.
There are some bold initiatives taken by both the countries. Among those measures, the notable initiatives consisted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the 2025 Oman negotiations and the Algiers Accord. Amidst the ongoing escalations, Istanbul talks witness fair and equitable negotiations through conditions of threat to the environment. Diplomacy being the only way forward is still struggling. There are certain roadblocks that are attached with this diplomatic dysfunction. R. B. Surgeant and R.L Bidwell provide a critical overview of diplomatic failure in their co-work “ The Middle East Crisis Factory” ; they placed three factors at the heart of diplomatic failure such as tyranny, resilience and resistance.
This difficulty in the realm of diplomacy arises out of three primary difficulties—secondary hindrances are many- such as mistrust, rooted in historical wrong, ideologically driven domestic political pressure, geopolitical moves, exacerbated by geoeconomic and geopolitical thrusts.
The most important catalyst behind retarted diplomacy is mistrust which originates from historical wrongs. The historical wrongs include: CIA backed orchestrated overthrow of Muhammad Mussadagh in 1953; repeated withdrawal and reinstitution of the most discussed nuclear deal – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action(JCPOA); military strikes and threats, killing of General Qasim Sulaimani (2020). These moves have become a pattern in regional diplomatic milieu creating mistrust which in turn creates unreliability in diplomatic agreements.
Domestic political pressure lies next to mistrust. Ideologically, Iran is averse to the existence of Israel as mini America. Politically, there is a theo–democracy in Iran as a system of government. Any diplomatic move that goes against these initiatives poses a domestic pressure in the materialization of peace oriented efforts. The geopolitical moves are greatly accredited to these domestic rippling initiatives.
To overcome these hurdles in the path of diplomacy, the following models are suggested to follow in the days ahead. Indirect track diplomacy and step by step confidence building measures.In this regard, regional diplomatic advisors urge talks as the only reliable options. Keeping series of escalation versus sustained diplomacy under consideration, Jamey keaten of Associated Press urges a deal must be struck in order to avert the situation of crisis. The primary bone of contention that drives the two states at dagger dawn centers around two primary discords such as enrichment of uranium and long range missile systems. The third round of Geneva Talks failed to solve these two issues, thus creating strategic risks that are no less than wattery smoke to dry Muslim eyeballs.
The anticipated risks increase the urgency of these diplomatic moves. These risks include expansion of conflict across the Middle East, disruption of the global energy market, long term polarization of regional energy markets, sustained engagement, regional instability, ideological rivalries and many more. History reveals that diplomacy has been the only option in conflicting international affairs. Treaty of Versailles, Geneva Accord, Salt treaties and Doha Accord manifest that there is always a room for diplomacy. If world wars are averted through diplomacy then Iran and Israel can also use tables instead of ammunition, rockets and Iron Domes.
True, diplomacy is the only way forward provided that regional and international actors must play their role as mediator and peace promoter. In this situation, the role of the United Nations and major powers is inevitable. More so, regional players can also play their piano to make die the surfeiting sickness of love of war.
Qazi Suhail Akhunzada
MA English
MA IR
Ex. V lecturer GDC Chitral Lower
