Complexities of asymmetrical warfare, economic exhaustion, and strategic compulsion have pushed Washington and Tehran towards an uneasy, cold and turbulent peace
Peace in West Asia appears trapped between a mirage and an abyss. Diplomats have shuttled between capitals carrying
proposals and counterproposals amidst recurrent missile and drone attacks and open
combats in the sky and waters. Mutual distrust among the warring parties- US, Israel and
Iran- has more often outweighed the gestures of peace, reconciliation and
accommodation. Hence the ceasefire has faced multi-pronged fires on account of mutual distrust and suspicion between USA and Israel. Consequently, both escalation and reconciliation between USA and Iran appear incapable of ushering in an endurable
peace.
Nevertheless, as on
June 12, 2026, Washington and Tehran appear closer to at least an interim
agreement than at any point of time since the present conflict erupted. President
Trump, who had threatened hours earlier on June 11 to decimate remaining military
infrastructure of Iran and even take over its entire oil reserves, including primary
oil export hub -Kharg island- that handles 90% of its crude, abruptly altered
his tone. He declared at White House that the United States was close to
securing "a great settlement" and suggested that a memorandum of
understanding could be signed "over the next few days," possibly in
Europe. He apparently cancelled planned strikes hinting that negotiations had
entered a decisive phase of conclusion. Markets rallied all over the world demonstrating
the global urge for an early de-escalation.
On the other hand, Iranians have been restrained and cautious. They neither
acknowledged nor rejected the possibility of an agreement. They have rather emphasized
that final decision was yet to be made. They also insisted that “substantial
differences remained unresolved” and that any arrangement “must reflect Iranian
sovereignty and national dignity” rather than submission under military
coercion.
Poverty of Trust
A threshold level of mutual trust has always defined success of any diplomatic
process. This has been squarely missing between US and Iran. Slightest of
miscommunication, for which enough space exists, may still trigger a fresh
round of conflict, derailing the quest for peace. Given the larger equations,
sustainability of even a formal deal, and its ability to lead to an endurable
solution, remains doubtful.
President Trump’s frequent recourse to deception, bluff, bullying and
overall unpredictability and unreliability have played a big role in the
prevailing level of diplomatic distrust. It is not only about the way he has
dealt with Iran alone. Astounding success of American covert operation to
capture Nicolas Maduro or killing of Iranian supreme leader or elimination of
Iranian military top brass have changed the trust quotient in geopolitics and
diplomacy forever. Iranians have been repeatedly quoted by media that the US
was not negotiating in good faith. They complain that more often the United States used negotiations only as smoke screen to prepare for deceitful attacks.
Such allegations gain credence in light of Omani foreign Minister’s disclosure
on Feb 27, just a day before US launched its attacks on Iran, that details of US-Iran
agreement had been worked out. It was
clear that American CENTCOM was preparing for the attacks, irrespective of
the progress or otherwise in the Omani brokered talks. United States appears to have reneged from
diplomacy to exercise military option with an element of stealth and deception.
Earlier, both United States and Israel had unequivocally declared regime
change in Iran as their war objective. They have now been compelled to climb down from
this initial goal more out of compulsion or their failure to achieve this goal. For Iranian regime, its survival remains sacred and non-negotiable. Hence, how can one expect Iranian regime to negotiate in good faith with entities who have been seeking to overthrow its very existence? This is especially after such large-scale killing of senior functionaries of the regime?
Consequently, the ceasefire between warring parties has remained under relentless fire, witnessing sustained violations. Iran and Israel have continued targeting one another's strategic infrastructure through periodic missile exchanges. Israel intermittently intensified operations against Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, maintaining that ceasefire with Tehran do not extend to other theatres.
Iran, for its part, has reportedly continued launching missile and drone attacks against facilities associated with U.S. allies across the Gulf, including Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan and even UAE, threatening serious spillover impact on the region. American commanders stationed in the Gulf have publicly acknowledged the precarious nature of the situation where even in absence of full -scale hostilities the trust-deficit environment kept everyone on toes.
Complex Dynamics of Asymmetrical Warfare
The later phase of the U.S.–Iran confrontation also exposed extraordinary
destructive consequences of modern warfare at one level and severe limitations
of military power in resolving deeply rooted geopolitical conflicts. While Iran can never be in a position to defeat
the United States in a conventional military contest, yet it has denied an
outright victory to combined forces of US and Israel.
American superiority in air power, surveillance capabilities, precision
strike capacity, stealth technology, logistics, and force projection remains
overwhelming. Israel similarly retains substantial technological and
intelligence advantages.
War has inflicted staggering losses for Iran. Almost entire top brass of
Its military has been wiped out alongside its supreme spiritual leader Ali
Khamenei. Estimated civilian casualties are in excess of tens of thousands
whereas thousands of losses of IRGC fighters has been reported in precision
US-Israeli strikes. Iranian Air Force has been severely crippled with at least
62 confirmed losses (unconfirmed figure places it at 83) of out of a total
inventory of little over 300. Many of the surviving aircraft have been damaged
or grounded, reducing its effective air combat strength to half of the pre-war
levels. Similarly, its Navy has also suffered massive damages. Out of a total
of nearly 100 conventional vessels and submarines, the figure of confirmed
losses as on June 10 stood at 28 (12 destroyed, 14 sunk and 2 captured) besides
another 14 being rendered inoperable. It has lost of most of its Frigates and Corvettes
even though of loss of submarines is estimated to be minimal.
Multiple IRGC bases in Tehran, Isfahan, Bandar Abbas, and Bushehr have
been damaged. Several underground missile cities have been destroyed but many
remain intact. Several key ports like Bandar Abbas and Bushehr as well as well
as multiple Refineries and petrochemical plants have been damaged in a bid to
further cripple its sanction hit economy and commercial and military maritime
capacities. Estimated economic losses for Iran are placed at hundreds of
billions of dollars. It is clear that Iran is in no position to win a
conventional war against the United States.
Yet its cheap,
expendable, and capable of being deployed in large numbers, Iranian drones
reportedly cost only a fraction of the sophisticated interceptor missiles
employed against them. While the exact figures vary, analysts frequently note
that drones costing tens of thousands of dollars may compel defenders to expend
interceptor systems costing hundreds of thousands or even millions.
United States has also lost 42 aircraft whose estimated cost has been assessed at 29 billion dollars. Media inputs also suggest that it is spending almost 1 billion dollars daily on the war and Pentagon insiders have been quoted as stating the total war figures around 50 billion dollars by June first week. There is limited infrastructure damage on account of missile hits at US bases in the region but most of these have been apparently contained. Yet the loss of global goodwill and loss of face for the United States and President Trump may be far more formidable.
Iran has also raised the cost for US and its allies by
attacking US bases in the region forcing them to defend multiple fronts.
Despite enduring severe pounding, Iran’s missile and drone arsenal remains
strong enough to deter an easy victory in foreseeable future. Geography of
Persian gulf enabled it to disrupt Strait of Hormuz, world’s most critical maritime
chokepoints, that controls the flow of
roughly 20% of global oil and 20% of liquefied natural gas, making it vital for
global energy security and international trade, especially for major Asian states. United States appears culpable for this
suffering in most of the impacted states and has lost significant global goodwill.
Boomerang Impact
Ideological and institutional resilience of an ideologically entrenched
theocratic regime in Iran, even in face of serious human and material losses, have raised its morale to demand bigger concessions from the most powerful state on this planet.
Further, American-Israeli aggression has helped an unpopular regime rally
popular support by invoking sentiments of patriotism. US-Israeli attacks have
been unmindful of civilian casualties and mass sufferings.
Regime change is a delicate component of a highly complex science of
covert warfare. It requires a unique cocktail of deception, deniability and subversion
by smart harnessing of pre-existing efficacious support structures. Any
reckless or excessive use of force, and that too from an external force, is
certain to boomerang. Such strategy may
have been successful in medieval era when institutional apparatus of a modern
state were rudimentary and bigger space existed for significantly powerful parallel
power centres. Such a move may still succeed in de-institutionalised states or states
with excessively fragile institutional capacities.
Iranian theocratic regime, despite its financial and technological
constraints was not found wanting on ideological support among well trained
Islamised troops. Irrespective of their numerical minority, they are strong
enough to quell most popular mass resentments. Now the support base for
opponents to the regime has been significantly fractured. External aggression
was a Godsend opportunity for Iranian theocracy to bolster its own legitimacy
and support base. In long run, both Trump and Netanyahu shall be remembered for
giving a fresh lease of life to Iranian theocracy.
Larger
Geopolitical Context
Further, it will also be naïve to rule out a degree of covert and
indirect Chinese and Russian support to Iranian regime. This must have played a critical role in
sustaining the moral and capacity of the latter to deny
an outright victory to American forces.
China has been very clear about its long-term strategic agenda to drive
out US and NATO not only from Taiwan and
Far East but from whole of Asia. Hence, Venezuela may have been far more
dispensable than Iran, whose fall again does not pose any existential threat to
China. Yet it is more likely to back Iran than Venezuela because any investment
in Iran is likely to get bigger geopolitical and security dividends, at a much
lesser cost, for CCP regime.
Personal agenda of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who is determined
to keep the pot boiling in whole of West Asia and more in Iran, to preserve his
own political fortunes and evade a possible conviction, is also a factor that
has dented integrity of American geopolitical calculations. Netanyahu has
appeared increasingly driven more by his own private agenda than that of
collective interests of people of Israel. He has continued to nudge America in
a direction that can benefit only him and that too at the cost of larger peace
and security in the region. Details on the issue are being avoided
deliberately. But reckless attacks and large-scale destructions can never be
objectives of smart warfare by a responsible state. More often these have
harmed credibility and long-term security of such aggressor states.
Further, the quality of mediator or broker is also important. Being an
Indian with a better understanding of psyche of Pakistani political and
military establishment, one can far better appreciate the confusion between US
and Iran and their relentlessly ping- pong position on critical issues.
A genetically dishonest and unreliable mediator more often breeds
discord and spreads confusion. This is what has defined the essence of Pakistan
brokered US-Iran peace process.
Financial
Losses for the World
The economic consequences of the conflict extend far beyond the region. Energy
markets remain acutely sensitive to developments in the Gulf. Oil price
volatility has contributed to renewed inflationary pressures. Shipping costs
have increased. Insurance premiums have risen.
Financial markets have repeatedly adjusted growth expectations in response to regional instability. Some informal assessments suggest that world may have already incurred GDP losses anywhere between $ 800 billion to 1 trillion dollars or more. Besides, additional inflation cost may be in the range of 0.3 to 0.7 percent. The IMF has reduced its 2026 global growth outlook to roughly 3.1%, compared to pre-war estimates of around 3.4%. It has cited the Middle East conflict and energy-market disruptions as the cause for the same. If the present uncertainty and volatility persist throughout 2026, the estimated global GDP losses may touch even $3 trillion and global growth rate figures may come down to 2.5%.
A prolonged period of uncertainty would threaten fragile recoveries
across both advanced and developing economies. The consequences would be
particularly severe for energy-importing nations like India who are already struggling
with debt, inflation, and developmental constraints.
Why
Sustainable Peace Appears Difficult
Several structural
obstacles continue to undermine the prospects of an enduring peace.
The first is the
irreconcilability of maximalist objectives of both the United States and Iran as well as Israel. The United States seeks durable
restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities, greater transparency, and limits on
activities perceived as destabilizing. Iran insists upon meaningful sanctions
relief, respect for sovereignty, preservation of strategic deterrence, and
guarantees against future coercion.
The area of convergence of mutual objectives between the US and Iran appears much smaller. Further, Iranian regime has all the more reasons to
distrust President Trump and his intents as well as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu and
Israeli establishment too may be equally wary of possible revenge or even proxy
or otherwise guerrilla attacks from Iran as a strategy of revenge.
Their mediator
Pakistan itself suffers from low credibility. It has track record of double
dealing and peddling private mercenary agenda of its incumbents at the first
available opportunity. This was clearly responsible for large-scale American
casualties in Afghanistan where Pakistan Army had allied with the US and yet supported
Taliban.
Domestic political
factors within the United States and internal power equations in Tehran or
larger geopolitical equations within the region shall also have strong impact
on fate of peace in the region. Since, American leaders face a highly polarized
political environment at home, any major concession to Tehran can invite
accusations of weakness. Even though President Trump remains politically strong
at the moment, he may be wary of making any concession to Iran, lest it jeopardizes his own position, even if the same may be critical for larger peace in the region.
Simultaneously, IRGC and theocratic elements, who constitute the bedrock
of support for Iranian regime, are hardliners by default. After so much of sacrifice by people and state of Iran,
they appear to be looking for victory in the negotiations. They are fully aware
of their capacity to pressure the entire world, and most of Asia, by ensuring closure
of strait of Hormuz. Hence, at this juncture, any major concession or softer position by the regime, especially towards the United States, may
appear surrender under pressure. This can threaten the very stability of the regime as it can potentially invite rebellion from lower ranks of IRGC. Hence, the
current IRGC leadership and political leaders of the regime shall have to walk
a very tight rope.
Regional stakeholders, especially Israel may act as the biggest spoiler
of peace. It has all the reason to be suspicious of Iranian capabilities and
intent. These do appear to pose an existential threat to Israel. It has been
insisting upon effective curbs on nuclear, missile and even drone capacities of
Iran. But in practical terms, it will continue to distrust the very existence of the current
theocratic regime, as well as any economic and technological progress under its aegis.
Simultaneously, Arab
partners of United States are also apprehensive of Iran and its entrenched
ideological position. Their quest for strategic stability in the region appears
opposed to any fresh strategic realignments that can alter the over-all regional balances.
China and Russia factors cannot be discounted from the larger
geopolitical equations. Though both of them have outwardly maintained a near
total distance from the conflict but their covert backing to Iranian regime has
been assessed by many experts. China is in a far better position to endure
economic losses on account of closure of Hormuz. Rather, it has already taken
proactive measures to mitigate its losses by effectively diversifying its
sources of oil and energy supplies. Unless severely provoked, China is also likely
to avoid a situation where it can be pitted directly against the United States.
Yet it is likely to do everything possible to provide some nourishment and
support to Iranian regime to withstand American pressure and assault. Russia
has its own axe to grind over NATO and American support to Ukraine. Its discreet
and limited support to Iran appears obvious. This is again a factor that will
embolden Iran to take a more assertive position in the talks with the United States.
Finally in the prevailing atmosphere of distrust and overall fragility of the ceasefire and peace talks, operational factors also play an important role. Even if senior leaderships agree to a ceasefire, the matter remains vulnerable to miscalculation. Rogue actors, proxy initiatives, or unauthorized military actions threaten stability and sustainability of any ceasefire. In an environment saturated with suspicion, a single incident can undo months of diplomacy.
Hence, what the world- and so many global corporate leaders and diplomats who are involved indirectly and directly in bringing in a sustainable cease-fire and peace – can legitimately expect is an uneasy, cold and turbulent peace through protracted, long and drawn-out process. An endurable peace appears extremely difficult in the immediate future.
It is hoped that powerful global corporate leaders in the
Arab world, and beyond, shall pull in their weight to bring in a sustainable ceasefire, with
humanitarian concessions to Iran, in their own larger and global economic
interests.
What has vitiated the atmosphere of diplomatic trust could be over reliance on spectacular covert killings and covert operations by both United states and Israel. This may offer a tactical thrill to wielders of state power. These may also be necessary and unavoidable under certain situations in the larger interest of peace and security, like that of killing of Osama Bin Laden. Yet their frequent misuse, especially by responsible states shall always erode long term diplomatic credibility, capacity and reliability of such states.
Nevertheless, the overall atmosphere for
sustainable peace in the region shall depend to a great extent upon some
profound internal changes within United States, Iran and Israel at one end and some
alterations in the larger global geopolitical equilibrium. This need not be in the form of changes
in incumbents of state or change of guards in the state at every level. A basic change in orientations
of leaders, or some external trigger factors, may play its own role. Let us hope that ceasefire sustains and peace process remains alive at least in the interim.
