No return to war

THE latest exchange of military strikes between the United States and Iran has dealt a worrying blow to hopes for lasting peace in the Middle East. Only days after the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding and the issuance of joint statement following talks in Switzerland, there was optimism that the region was finally moving away from confrontation and towards a permanent diplomatic settlement. Those expectations have now been overshadowed by a dangerous escalation that risks undoing the progress painstakingly achieved through dialogue. The immediate trigger for the renewed tensions was Washington’s accusation that Iran attacked a commercial cargo vessel transiting the Strait of Hormuz, an act the United States described as a clear violation of the ceasefire. In response, US Central Command launched strikes against Iranian missile and drone storage facilities as well as coastal radar positions, terming the operation a necessary response to aggression against commercial shipping. Iran, in turn, announced retaliatory strikes against US positions in the Gulf region and warned that any further aggression would invite an even broader response. The renewed hostilities have also reignited concerns over the security of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical maritime trade routes. This is a deeply troubling development. A ceasefire is meaningful only if both sides exercise restraint and honour it both in letter and spirit. The understanding reached after the Switzerland talks had created an opportunity to replace military confrontation with diplomacy. Rather than exchanging strikes, both Washington and Tehran should remain committed to the agreed roadmap and work towards achieving a durable peace within the sixty-day timeframe that was mutually accepted. Technical talks must go ahead as planned and any, disagreements or violations should be addressed across the negotiating table instead of on the battlefield. Resorting to military action at this delicat