The war between the United States and Iran, which began on February 28 this year, has yet to reach any clear and lasting conclusion despite eight months having passed. The fiery rhetoric, military preparations, and severe threats issued by both sides against each other are further stoking the flames of a potential escalation of the war. Apparently, hopes for a ceasefire and negotiations have repeatedly emerged, but each time, upon reaching the threshold of peace, matters have fallen victim to a new deadlock, disagreement, or a severe attack.
According to a research report by the British Parliament, the United States and Israel unleashed airstrikes on Iran on February 28, with the stated objective of targeting Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes and putting pressure on its government. In response, Iran targeted Israel, American military bases in the region, and certain targets in neighbouring countries, while the closure of the Strait of Hormuz sent shockwaves through global trade and energy supplies.
Subsequently, a 14-point memorandum of understanding was brokered through Pakistan’s mediation. However, a burning question arises here: when both parties are aware of the economic, military, and political losses of the war, why does a path towards lasting peace still remain elusive even after reaching the negotiating table?
One major reason is that the fundamental demands of both countries clash head-on. The United States wants curbs on Iran’s nuclear programme, its stockpiles of enriched uranium, and its missile capabilities, while Iran considers the permanent end of the war, respect for its sovereignty, the lifting of sanctions, and guarantees against future attacks to be non-negotiable conditions.
Nevertheless, Pakistan’s mediation opened a vital diplomatic avenue in this war. The negotiations held in Islamabad and the reconciliation proposals that subsequently emerged demonstrated that, despite fierce military confrontation, both parties continued to try to reach common ground through indirect contacts.
The 14-point Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding unveiled on June 17, 2026, included key provisions such as ending the war, ensuring safe maritime passage through the Strait of Hormuz, ending the American naval blockade, restoring Iranian assets, and a 60-day window for future negotiations.
This is precisely where Pakistan’s diplomatic importance gains further weight. Pakistan not only emerged as a channel of communication between the two parties but also succeeded in providing a mutually acceptable platform for a ceasefire and negotiations.
The most alarming front of this war is the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, which links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. This passage is a vital lifeline for the global transportation of oil and liquefied natural gas.
Any prolonged closure or disruption of maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz could send global energy prices, shipping costs, insurance premiums, and the prices of everyday essentials soaring.
Here, the fact that the economies of Gulf countries, global energy markets, and Asian industrial economies are deeply tied to the stability of this passage cannot be overlooked. Therefore, the Strait of Hormuz crisis is not merely an issue between Iran and the United States, but an alarm bell for the entire global economic system.
Iran has warned that if it is targeted by attacks again, it vows to strike American interests and military installations in the region, as well as countries supporting the United States. The petro-dollar-rich rulers and their institutions living in glass palaces could once again be hurled back into the desert age.
Such threats have created an extremely precarious situation for Gulf countries, for which the gravest threat is that, in the event of a new attack, their ports, energy installations, airports, and other infrastructure could be swept into the war.
This is why it is no exaggeration to describe the Gulf region as a glass house in the current war environment. A blow to the security of one country in this region could also ripple through the defence, trade, and economic stability of other countries.
Iran’s strategy rests on missile capabilities, drone technology, leveraging regional geography, and ratcheting up the economic and political costs of a prolonged war for the opposing side.
On the other hand, for American leadership, this war is not merely a matter of crippling Iranian military installations, but also an issue of safeguarding its allies, securing global energy supplies, and preserving its credibility in the Middle East.
Time and again, US President Donald Trump has hinted at both negotiations and military action. This approach has further deepened uncertainty in the diplomatic process.
Iran has also signalled that it is ready for diplomacy but will brook no compromise on its defence capabilities and sovereignty.
In this context, the future of the war will not be decided by military might alone, but also by how much flexibility each side demonstrates in achieving its political objectives through negotiations.
The effects of the Iran-US war are already plainly visible in global energy markets and international trade. If the movement of commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted for a prolonged period, its effects could spill over into the prices of oil, gas, electricity, fertilisers, industrial raw materials, and food. These effects have already been felt, as can be estimated from the spiralling inflation in Pakistan with each passing day.
Developing countries, particularly those states that depend on energy imports, could be hit harder by this crisis. Rising energy prices have swelled their import bills, squeezed their currencies, and continued to fuel inflation.
According to reports that surfaced on November 1, 2026, negotiations between Iran and Qatari mediators continued in Doha for the third straight day, with the aim of clinching a workable agreement to end the eight-month-long war.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, while pointing to progress in diplomatic efforts, stressed that Iran was ready for both defence and diplomacy. However, no final deal was announced.
Furthermore, talks were under way on an Iranian proposal under which the Strait of Hormuz could be reopened within five days following a possible agreement with the United States. On the other hand, US President Donald Trump termed the negotiations positive while stopping short of completely ruling out the possibility of military action.
This development signals that, despite differences between the two parties, the diplomatic path has not been slammed shut. However, in light of past experiences, it would be premature to say that negotiations have become a guarantee of a final deal.
Potential flexibility on Iran’s part regarding the timeline for reopening the Strait of Hormuz could open the door to progress on issues such as lifting the American blockade and permanently ending the war.
But the million-dollar question remains: will both countries confine confidence-building measures to merely a temporary ceasefire, or will they also be willing to transform them into an enduring political settlement?
Pakistan’s mediation, Oman’s earlier diplomatic role, and Qatar’s recent contacts point to the fact that diplomatic possibilities for ending the war in the region remain alive.
However, to turn these possibilities into reality, it is crucial that ceasefire commitments be strengthened through practical measures, transparent monitoring, and mutual trust. This is because if ceasefire agreements continue to prove merely fleeting pauses and threats continue to take precedence over diplomacy, the peace of the Gulf region, global energy supplies, and the international economy will remain under constant threat.
And if both parties succeed in converting this opportunity into lasting reconciliation, then this very war, which has brought the world to the brink of a wider crisis, could also become the cornerstone of a new and more stable regional security architecture in the future.
For now, the hope for peace endures, but turning this hope into reality requires not merely words, but serious decisions and concrete steps.
