Towards a Strategic Educational Vision

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 the prospect of a settlement using a new logic, rather than returning to the use of maritime security and the 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 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, which some viewed as concessions or gains secured by the Iranian regime 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 have caused crises. The success of any agreement depends on the parties’ ability to read the historical moment and act responsibly.

When the war broke out between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other in late February, it appeared that some had bet that intensive 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 rarely fall due to external pressure alone; they collapse when they lose their internal foundations of 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 has reached a difficult economic, political, and military juncture. The recent military confrontations have intensified these pressures, making continued escalation a risk not only for Iran but for the entire region.

This underscores the importance of statecraft. Not every agreement with a weakened adversary constitutes a reward for that adversary; often, settlement serves as a means to prevent chaos, the consequences of which 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 was not responsible for the outcomes of the war, but that transforming defeat into permanent humiliation sows the seeds of new conflict, rather than laying the foundation for stable peace.

From this vantage point, the agreement with Iran can be viewed: the objective 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 record 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 revenge, or another missed opportunity, because one side failed to recognize that peace requires courage no less than that needed to wage war.