Politics Prevails Over the Logic of Violence

In my view, the Iranian regime committed one of its gravest and most egregious errors when it recently targeted several ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz through the navigational channel adjacent to the coast of the Sultanate of Oman.

It then reverted to a policy of aggression and threats to close the strait, thereby violating the spirit of the memorandum of understanding reached with the United States through Qatari-Pakistani mediation.

This action has legitimately raised questions about whether the Iranian regime is truly prepared to engage with a settlement opportunity using a new logic, rather than returning to the use of maritime security and freedom of energy transit in the Arabian Gulf as tools of pressure and coercion. Such tactics do not affect only the countries of the region, but the global economy as a whole.

Governments and peoples of the Arab Gulf states, like many countries around the world, had hoped that this settlement would hold and open a new avenue for de-escalation, despite the reservations and doubts surrounding it—doubts that some viewed as reflecting gains the Iranian regime had secured following a harsh military confrontation.

However, supporting the logic of a settlement does not mean ignoring mistakes, nor does choosing the path of diplomacy mean rewarding policies that caused crises. The success of any agreement depends on the parties’ ability to read the historical moment and act responsibly.

When the war erupted between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other in late February last year, it seemed some had bet that intense military strikes would lead to the rapid collapse of the Iranian regime.

But history has shown that the calculations of war differ from those of politics, and that peoples, however dissatisfied with their internal conditions, tend to rally around their countries when they perceive an external threat. Regimes do not typically fall due to external pressure alone, but rather when they lose, from within, the foundations of their survival.

From this perspective, one can understand President Donald Trump’s decision to shift from confrontation to settlement. Some viewed the agreement as a reward for the Iranian regime, while others saw it as a realistic attempt to prevent the region from sliding into a more dangerous phase.

After decades of sanctions, isolation, and the drain of resources on external influence projects, Iran had reached a difficult economic, political, and military juncture. The recent military confrontations intensified these pressures, making continued escalation a risk not only for Iran but for the entire region.

Herein lies the importance of statecraft: not every agreement with a weakened adversary constitutes a reward. Often, settlement serves as a means to prevent chaos, whose consequences can be more dangerous than war itself.

The German experience after World War I offers an important lesson. The Treaty of Versailles imposed harsh conditions on defeated Germany in 1919, fostering a deep sense of humiliation that Adolf Hitler later exploited to build an extremist project that led the world into an even more devastating war.

The lesson was not that Germany bore no responsibility for the war’s outcomes, but that transforming defeat into permanent humiliation sows the seeds of new conflict, rather than laying the foundation for stable peace.

From this angle, the agreement with Iran can be viewed: the goal is not to grant free legitimacy to any party, but to provide an opportunity to transition from a logic of confrontation to one of politics.

However, this opportunity requires the Iranian regime to demonstrate its ability to abandon tools of threat and coercion, and to respect the security of its neighbors, freedom of navigation, and the rules of international relations.

History does not only remember those who won wars, but also those who possessed the wisdom to prevent the next war. It also teaches us that opportunities afforded by politics do not remain open indefinitely if misused.

Thus, the final judgment on this settlement will depend on what the coming days reveal: it will either become a model of pragmatism triumphing over vengeance, or another missed opportunity, because one side failed to recognize that peace requires courage no less than that needed to wage war.