Negotiations: A Chapter in the War
America bombs Iran, and the Iranian regime bombs Gulf states, after which the parties resort to the negotiating table, and there are many such tables here, only for the bombing to resume and the scene to repeat itself. In Lebanon, Hezbollah and the Zionist entity face off; those who are killed are killed, those who are displaced are displaced, and buildings, homes, and facilities are destroyed. Then the combatants go to Italy and sit at a negotiating table. All of this is happening while the world, and the peoples of the targeted countries, watch the negotiations and military conflicts. They are drawn in by hope for some way out, but exhausted by waiting, anticipation, and doubt about whether there is actually any exit from these wars.
Negotiations often constitute a chapter in the chapters of war. This has happened and repeated since World War II, where military force alone was not the decisive factor in ending wars, but was followed by or coincided with numerous negotiations to cease fire, demarcate borders, exchange prisoners, or for other purposes. The Korean War ended with an armistice after long negotiations, the Vietnam War ended with the Paris Agreement, and the Iran-Iraq War ended through negotiations. The same occurred in the Balkan Wars and several other conflicts in the Middle East.
Today, in the ongoing war between Iran and America, and between Israel and Hezbollah, negotiations proceed in tandem with military and political pressure on the ground. Such a path usually continues until all parties become convinced that the cost of war and its potential gains are far higher than any party’s capacity to continue it. In other words, peace in its highest sense is not the reason for ending any ongoing war; rather, it is the cost of war that settles matters and ultimately leads to negotiations that are more realistic and practical.
Throughout history, no military confrontation has achieved peace in the true sense of the word. Military confrontations and wars may allow one side to control territories or achieve political or economic gains, but they have never created sustainable peace. Military decisiveness may enable one side to triumph over another on the battlefield, thereby imposing its conditions in negotiations or conditional talks. However, these are rarely equal, but rather create fertile ground for sparking future disputes or wars. This is evident in the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, which many historians believe paved the way for World War II by imposing harsh conditions on Germany at the time.
The Middle East region has become exhausted due to continuous wars that have burdened its peoples, making them swing daily between hope that negotiations will create a new reality, and despair that the war, bombing, and psychological, moral, and institutional damage will continue. These peoples wake up every day to news of ongoing negotiations, opening a window of hope for an upcoming breakthrough, only for despair to descend again following the launch of missiles, drones, bombing, and the sounding of sirens.
Negotiations do not mean the end of war; rather, they are part of the war’s trajectory. Each side seeks leverage through military actions that may alter the balance of power. True peace lies in ending the root causes of conflict, which, in the case of the Middle East conflict, begins with the Arab-Israeli struggle and regional and international competition over a region blessed by God with everything: resources, strategic location, waterways, and ports. This has turned the region throughout history into a arena where interests, wars, disputes, and states intersect and compete.
Suad Fahd Al-Muajjel
