A temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran announced has provided a moment of relief in the region that is on the verge of a consequential war. The two-week truce which is being brokered with the mediation of Pakistan is being promoted as a diplomatic breakthrough. However, continuing violence and contradictory interpretations of the agreement give reason to believe that this is not the end of the conflict. The ceasefire is considered to be a strategic pause and not a compromise to the United States. Washington also seems eager to prevent an expensive and lengthy war after weeks of military confrontation but continue to pressure Iran.
The ceasefire would enable the U.S. to safeguard some of its key economic interests, which include the stability of oil supplies in the world market through the Strait of Hormuz, an important energy route. Meanwhile, it offers room to negotiate to contain the Iranian nuclear and missile programs, fundamental goals of U.S. policy. The United States has however made it clear that the ceasefire is not applied to the Israeli war in Lebanon, indicating that it has limits in its commitment to de-escalation. This two-fold strategy of pursuing peace and yet exerting strategic pressure highlights the bigger objective of Washington stability without foregoing influence.
Although the ceasefire has now halted direct hostility against Iran, Israel has now made it clear that the war is not over. The Israeli leadership has categorically excluded Lebanon in the agreement as it is still waging war against Hezbollah.
Over the past few hours, Israel troops have launched massive attacks in Lebanon, including in Beirut, destroying Hezbollah infrastructure. Such operations indicate the long-term goal of Israel, to counter the Hezbollah that act close to its borders.
Nonetheless, such a strategy is very risky. One of the major factors that made the conflict escalate to include Iran was the role of Hezbollah, and the ongoing violence in Lebanon is likely to trigger the outbreak of wider hostilities. Iran has already made threats that the ceasefire would be destroyed by continued attacks by Israel. Lebanon has literally turned into a second battlefield,a battleground which might readily drag the region into just another war.
The current ceasefire is still fragile even though there is optimism in the world. The major points of conflict between the United States and Iran remain, especially regarding nuclear policy.Meanwhile, the ongoing violence in Lebanon underlines the disjointedness of the conflict.Another significant global energy shock caused by the war is the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which interferes with the supply of oil and impacts industries in the whole world.The economic effects will be long-term, and the increase in energy and food prices, and even other shortages will affect global markets long after the instant conflict.Iran on the other hand, though severely damaged, has been able to maintain its government, military system and strategic capabilities, which can help it gain greater strength in subsequent negotiations.
The role taken by Pakistan in the developing Gulf crisis is not an economic dependability and the diplomatic opportunity.Approximately 80 per cent of crude oil imports by Pakistan and two-thirds of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) flow through this chokepoint which carries an estimated 20 million barrels of the world oil daily.With this strategic weakness, Pakistan has become a key intermediary in this crisis, which has helped in brokering between Washington and Tehran at a crucial point. The ceasefire accord that has put weeks of military confrontations on hold demonstrates the fact that Islamabad was able to serve as a facilitator between the enemies. Negotiations are supposed to be ongoing in Islamabad and it brings out the increasing diplomatic relevancy of Pakistan.This position strengthens the image of Pakistan as a responsible actor of the region and preconditions the increased participation in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Nevertheless, it is risky as well. The limits of its influence have been revealed by confusion over whether the ceasefire covers Lebanon, which was at first proposed by Pakistani officials and subsequently denied by Israel.
The truce has been celebrated by the international leaders as a step back to the brink, yet they have also cautioned that the truce should not be considered as a lasting solution. The fact is that several interrelated conflicts are occurring at the same time with their actors and goals.The Middle East is wary of the strategic moves and chessboard tactics between Tehran and Beirut. The ceasefire might have put a hold on one aspect of the war, but it has failed to solve the tensions that are fueling it.With diplomacy going on in Islamabad and the war still going on in Lebanon, it is certain that this is not the end of the war. It is a mere truce in an immense and more uncertain conflict.
Be the first to comment