A Conflict By Any Other Name...
- DIPLOMACY
- Jun 24
- 12 min read
How the US-Iran War has changed the consideration of future military action and peaceful negotiations.
Raymond B. Kaniu is the Chief Executive & Chairman of Strähl Composite.
Executive Summary
The United States of America and The Islamic Republic of Iran are finally working together to put an end to what has been the worst global economic interruption in recent years
Military action was deemed necessary to preemptively neutralize imminent threats to American assets, halt Iran’s expanding nuclear capabilities, and prevent Iran from establishing an unmanageable regional hegemony
Many observers, including legal experts, have scrutinized these justifications for military actions arguing the strikes were preemptive and lacked explicit U.N. Security Council authorization, and didn’t meet the strict international law requirements for imminent self-defense.
Qatar and Pakistan assumed the role of peace brokers against the global shocks that had become impediments to resolving conflict.
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was finally agreed a week ago after four months of warring.
War is no longer confined to traditional tactics and strategies, those remain pivotal, but they now operate inside a wider strategic environment that involves systems that make military might unusable.
The United States of America and The Islamic Republic of Iran are finally working together to put an end to what has been the worst global economic interruption in recent years caused by a conflict or war since the beginning of another war, farther eastward. The war between these two adversaries is responsible for the arrest of a major maritime choke point – the Strait of Hormuz – that triggered systemic global shocks. Escalating tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missile capabilities, and support for regional proxies led to military action. The incendiary assassination of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ignited more action from both sides. From the opening strike on February 28, 2026 by the U.S. and Israel on Iran, to the ongoing peace negotiations in Switzerland, significant regional causalities and widespread economic disruption have blanketed the region. Both parities have engaged in extensive diplomatic efforts and ceasefire negotiations to restore regional stability and resolve the standoff.
Military action was deemed necessary to preemptively neutralize imminent threats to American assets, halt Iran’s expanding nuclear capabilities, and prevent Iran from establishing an unmanageable regional hegemony. Domestically, tensions in Iran were further inflamed by violent state crackdowns against domestic protesters and political opposition, prompting U.S. and EU sanctions. Many observers, including legal experts, have scrutinized these justifications for military actions arguing the strikes were preemptive and lacked explicit international law requirements for imminent self-defense.
The U.S. Advantage
From a global darling and savior to an island, the U.S.’ reputation globally has fallen out as a result of these actions. The U.S. normally takes wars to nations, not the other way around. It was inevitable that they would have to take the war to Iran. It is the Atlantic advantage on one side, and the Pacific advantage on the other – the two-ocean moat. This makes it safer to work from the ocean because the contiguous United States is shielded from retaliation due to the vast distance that has to be covered to bring the war to them directly. It acts as a permanent, natural, military fortress, surrounded by weak and friendly neighbors. This advantage makes the U.S. adamant to concede to agreements until they have achieved their objectives knowing that any retaliation will be restricted to the initial geographic confines where the war will be waged – Iran.
This isolation affects their ideology considering the impact the U.S. has on international affairs. The United States’ military global presence, includes strategic stockpiles that it maintains for immediate operations, the civil reserve air fleet (CRAF) that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) can legally co-opt entire fleets of airlines, and the leverage from the supply-chain mastery of private corporations that can manage assets dynamically. It makes support-to-combat highly effective. Additionally, the U.S. has cultivated highly synchronized alliances with NATO and maintains over 750 military bases in roughly 80 countries. The U.S. also controls foundational networks that the entire world uses and was the main donor to major international organizations, most of which it pulled out of at the beginning of the second Trump Administration. For example, the Global Positioning System (GPS), operated by the U.S. Space Force can be used to their advantage. While civilians can access it for free, the U.S. has the absolute capability to selectively harm, degrade, or alter GPS signals over localized war zones, blinding enemy guidance systems while its own munitions remain pinpoint accurate. It is how they managed to attack Iran without any “boots on the ground.”
The U.S. dollar is the world’s primary reserve currency that acts as an infinite financial advantage for the U.S. It can be used to effectively fund war efforts by issuing debt that the global market inherently absorbs. It means that while at war, the U.S. can sustain military expenditures with minimized domestic economic collapse. The clearing systems for dollar transactions – the underlying plumbing of global banking – is controlled by the United States. They can freeze an adversary’s foreign assets and cut them off from global trade. The U.S. activated this advantage in response to Iran’s protests and demonstrations by enacting economic sanctions and freezing critical assets.
Iran’s Advantage
Iran on the other hand has a longer history of war spanning over 2,500 years, evolving from the ancient Persian Empires’ conquests to the modern geopolitical struggles of the 21st century. It has been defined by the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, the Islamic Revolution, and a prolonged conflict with the U.S. and Israel. As a result of this history, instead of competing with advanced conventional outfits directly, Iran focused on cheap, mass-producible drones and ballistic missiles. It forces its adversaries like the U.S. to spend more in a single engagement. According to the Iran Cost Ticker, the U.S. spent an estimated $113.3 billion directly on operations and munitions, with long-term economic impacts potentially exceeding $1 trillion. Iran’s economy suffered vast devastation; in negotiations, Iran claimed physical and infrastructure damages required up to $300 billion in reconstruction or compensation to rectify. All of that in a span of 108 days.
Iran’s geographical location grants it leverage via the Strait of Hormuz maritime choke point where roughly 20 percent of global petroleum passes. It is an implicit deterrent that can instantly trigger global energy shocks. A deterrent that was actualized when the attacks began, increasing the cost of energy and food prices across the globe. Iran’s geographical advantage extends inland where Iran’s mountainous terrain acts like a natural defensive shield. It allows them to hide military assets, command centers, and missile arsenals deep underground or in rugged topography, making them difficult to target even with air superiority. This is what the world witnessed about a year ago under “Operation Midnight Hammer,” a U.S. military operation which targeted deeply buried Iranian nuclear and missile infrastructures in Fordo and Natanz. Comprehensively, the geopolitical interdependence makes Iran a vital piece of the global economic mechanism. The threat of prolonged instability discourages global powers to avoid total escalation, giving Iran significant political maneuvering power in peace negotiations.
The division of its forces between Artesh (its army) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) infuse a complex parallel military structure. Paired with a decentralized command system that ensures the government and the military can survive decapitation strikes and maintain operational functionality. This is why they managed to survive the toppling of their regime after the Ayatollah’s assassination, their highly decentralized command system features a blend of regional and mayoral commands that have pre-designated leadership successions. Moreover, Iran enhances its deterrent posture through a network of affiliated regional proxy groups that offer a unified front against adversaries.
Historically, when two nations are in conflict, a mediator arises. One with both an incentive and motivation for peace, and that is what Qatar and Pakistan did. They assumed the role of peace brokers against the advantages that had become impediments to resolving conflict.
Qatar’s Diplomatic Role
Qatar served as the primary diplomatic mediator and broker between Iran and the U.S. Their credibility almost became undone when they were drawn into the conflict. Iranian forces targeted the Al Udeid Air Base and energy infrastructure. Qatar hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle Eastern region suggesting that their support could have tipped in favor of the U.S. However, the conflict also affected neighboring Gulf oil states. They were forced to halt oil and natural gas production until peace resumed and their collective support for the United States made them targets by Iran. Qatar leveraged its security reliance on the U.S. with pragmatic ties to Iran, including the pursuit of cross-border energy infrastructure like proposed electricity interconnections to reduce regional isolation.
Pakistan’s Diplomatic Role
Pakistan’s diplomatic role as the mediator led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir resulted in an April 2026 ceasefire. Leveraging its geographical proximity, historical ties, and unique neutrality, Islamabad facilitated back-channel negotiations, paving the way for direct talks and a road map toward a permanent deal. Their incentive was that the longer the war continued the more it would spill over the 900-kilometer border with Iran. Pakistan also benefits from the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Their neutrality came from maintaining open ties with Iran while not hosting any U.S. military bases. Combined with strong personal relationships with the U.S. administration, Pakistan’s neutrality facilitated a ceasefire and rounds of negotiations, which ultimately led to the meeting in the Burgenstock Resort in Switzerland.
Peace Negotiations
The friction that arose from the naval blockades, upset preexisting alliances and defense partnerships. As the war progressed, diplomatic negotiations were held to end the conflict. Numerous attempts to make peace, prolonged the economic plight and spiced the nuclear affair with military retaliation. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was finally agreed a week ago after four months of warring.
The 14-point deal details a course of action to end the conflict and reopen the Strait of Hormuz:
An immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.
To respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs
The final agreement should not exceed a maximum of 60 days, extendable with mutual consent.
To end the naval blockade and remove any disturbances or impediments against each other and traffickers of the Strait of Hormuz, within 30 days.
Iran will make arrangement using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days, only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. Iran and Oman will hold dialogue to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz with other Persian Gulf states according to international law.
A commitment of at least $300 billion to reconstruction and economic development of Iran to be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days.
The termination of all sanctions against Iran, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolutions and all unilateral U.S. sanctions in an agreed upon schedule.
Iran shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. Both parties agree to resolve the disposition of stockpiled enriched material, pursuant to an agreed mechanism.
Pending the final deal, the United States and Iran will maintain the status quo of its nuclear program and the U.S. will refrain from enacting any further sanctions and deploying additional forces.
The U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, their derivatives, and all associates services.
The United States will unfreeze and unlock Iran’s funds and assets under mutually agreed procedures.
The establishment of an executive mechanism to monitor the successful implementation and compliance of the agreement.
After completing points 1,4,5,10, and 11, both parties will begin negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively.
The final deal will be endorsed by a binding United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution.
The agreement reads more like a compromise than a resolve due to the many items it leaves for further negotiations at unreasonable deadlines. One of the objectives going into the war was to permanently disable or monitor Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Invitations for peaceful negotiations prior to military action were met with skepticism and rejection, while the promise of the application of soft power never unfolded as intended. Iran is a formidable opponent and the challenge of adhering to strict international constraints on all things nuclear, coupled with their influence over the “Axis of Resistance,” motivated the actions of the U.S. Add oil and ideology to that broth, and you have a recipe for disaster. The conflict between these two nations has been brewing for years.
Months prior to the war, the U.S. had gathered momentum through “Operation Absolute Resolve,” which involved aerial bombing campaigns in Caracas and a commando raid that captured President Nicolas Maduro. The U.S. were emboldened to move on Iran when the moment presented itself. Consider the parallels of the two nations, Iran and Venezuela. One can substitute the war on drugs and terrorism for nuclear disarmament, and migration and border security for regional power balance. The other two are similarities not substitutes: control of oil reserves (energy security) and geopolitical and ideological influence. The U.S. must have figured out the same but faltered on execution. In Venezuela, the U.S. achieved its objective of toppling the Maduro regime, and that was the last we heard of that saga other than the surrender of the Nobel Peace Prize by Maria Corina Machado to curry favor with President Donald Trump; and the federal charges leveled at Maduro, including narco-terrorism and cocaine importation conspiracy.
As the first round of negotiations in Switzerland concluded, it became clearer that everyone wants the same thing: for the war to be over and for things to resume a resemblance of “yester-normalcy.” The U.S. delegation was led by the Vice President JD Vance, with President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff. Iran’s delegation was led by the Speaker of Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and included Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Key takeaways from the first round of negotiation include the establishment of a high-level committee to provide political oversight on the mediation. Both conflicting parties and mediators agreed on a roadmap towards reaching a final deal within 60 days, as stated in the MOU, laying the groundwork for further negotiations. The parties also agreed to a “de-confliction cell” aimed at ending Israel’s military operations in Lebanon. It is not clear how this will pan out given Israel’s stance on Lebanon where they have claimed to remain for as long as they would like. A nudge from the U.S. to complete the peace agreement that covers that conflict too is within their grasp. At best, it will be a conundrum for Israel considering their relationship with the U.S. Economic concessions from Washington like waiving sanctions and unfreezing assets will be a tougher sale for those in Washington after the U.S. delegates agreed to the concession. However, the concession from Iran to allow the return of IAEA inspectors will be viewed by Washington as a massive victory, and will ease the agreement of the contentious economic concessions. This has been a major breaking point in the conflict between Iran and the U.S., and still has a long way to go in practice.
The Spoils of War
Both sides have claimed victory following the ceasefire and signing of the MOU. However, both sides too can agree that though certain objectives were met, they could have handled the matter better because so many lives and money was lost. Neither side wanted to surrender and the growing global pressure led them to reconsider their motives for the greater good.
Economically, it has impacted energy costs by halting traffic in and out of a vital corridor where major Gulf petroleum producers export millions of barrels. It has led to price surges due to the deficit directly fueling (pun-intended) global inflation. It also contributed to higher freight rates because re-routed and stalled tankers coerced private companies to seek ad-hoc transit deals and engage in risky bilateral agreements.
The other side of that shiny coin was that Gulf nations finally realized the vulnerability aspect of the maritime choke point as it relates to the mobility of tankers ferrying a product that contributes generously to their gross domestic product (GDP). For example, the United Arab Emirates’ (UAE) decision to leave OPEC and OPEC+, came immediately after the conflict began, amid a broader regional realignment. The UAE sought economic independence through the detachment so that it can pump and sell as much oil as it can without the prevailing capacity restrictions. The conflict also resurrected the idea of seeking alternative routes. The U.S.-Iran conflict threatened food security as high transportation and fertilizer costs disproportionately impacted the region. High energy prices placed heavy tax burdens on consumers globally, reducing real purchasing power, stifling economic growth, and weakening local economies. Moreover, the shutdown altered the Middle Eastern political architecture and balances of power.
In the end, there were more questions raised about the conflict than there were prior to the engagement. Can technologically accelerated warfare keep up with the political and military systems surrounding it? We saw the recovery that Iran had once their leader was toppled and how they kept their leadership intact as a result. The challenge of coordinating activity from a distance by the U.S. and the use of countless cheap drones by Iran exposed the new conditions of war. Indirect, asymmetrical, and coercive activities eroded the United State’s legitimacy, influence, and political will thus shaping the political conditions under which force can be applied, sustained, and translated to strategic effect. War is no longer confined to traditional tactics and strategies, those remain pivotal, but they now operate inside a wider strategic environment that involves systems that make military might unusable. War can now be brought to critical national corporate structures, transportation routes and means, cloud infrastructures, data centers, food and health facilities, energy apparatus, communication infrastructures, and other points of optimum influence. Nations can now induce maximum damage without ever laying a finger on a trigger nor harming another human being physically. This finding is an extension of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. The concept of putting actual human beings in the battlefield is also disappearing with autonomous systems prevailing the throes of war.
The war also led U.S. leaders to re-examine the powers and authorities of a president. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, the power of the purse, and legislation requiring congressional authorization for the use of military force (AUMF), are checks and balances enacted by the U.S. Congress to limit a president’s war-making capabilities. The lines were blurred on this particular conflict based on President Trump’s action against congressional sentiments. A good example unfolded at the same time the negotiations are being held. The U.S. Senate moved to halt the Iran war in a historic move yesterday by voting 50-48 to pass a war powers resolution directing President Trump to halt military action against Iran. The resolution had already passed in the House of Representatives, a first since the 1973 War Powers Act. This re-examination and reaffirmation of curbing the president’s authority surfaced on the backdrop of the administration’s request for more funds for the war, and following a cyber attack on Iranian banks.
Let us hope this will further propel the negotiations to the certain end they must meet, for war is as constant as peace. The absence of one leaves room for the existence of the other.
Comments