Why Emerging “Peace Processes” Risk Recycling War |
Each time diplomacy returns to the Middle East, it promises de-escalation, stability, perhaps even peace. Yet for those in Gaza, such promises have become part of a familiar cycle—violence, pause, and violence again. In the current confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, the language of peace is once again gaining ground. Envoys are active, backchannels are open, and cautious optimism is being carefully staged. But what is emerging may not be peace at all. It may be another way of managing war.
The region has seen this script before. Escalation produces urgency, urgency produces diplomacy, and diplomacy produces agreements that promise stability. For a moment, tensions recede. Then they return. Not because peace failed, but because it was never designed to succeed. What is often presented as resolution is, in practice, recalibration.
At the centre of this pattern lies a structural imbalance that cannot be ignored. The United States is not simply facilitating dialogue; it is shaping its limits.
As a principal actor aligned with Israel, Washington does not stand above the conflict—it operates within it. A peace process led by a party to the war is less a negotiation than an exercise in control.
As a principal actor aligned with Israel, Washington does not stand above the conflict—it operates within it. A peace process led by a party to the war is less a negotiation than an exercise in control.
The outcome is not a balanced settlement, but a managed equilibrium that reduces immediate risk while preserving the underlying hierarchy of power.
This imbalance is reflected in the expectations placed on Iran. It is asked to limit its capabilities, scale back its regional influence, and demonstrate compliance with international demands. In........