So, finally, after going through so many ups and downs, the peace deal between the United States and Iran has been formalised and signed, leaving behind a blank page filled with equal measures of hope and fear regarding permanent regional as well as global security. They say, “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.” Talking over issues in a peaceful manner is the only viable methodology to resolve disputes, while wars bring forth destruction, death, disappointment and demonic victory. Beyond any cavil, the role of Pakistan has been, and will remain, historically significant in connection with this extraordinary accord. Pakistan, as a state and a nation, is being justifiably appreciated by the United Nations and by many corners and quarters of the world because it helped minimise the immediate risk of a wider Middle Eastern war and contributed towards reopening important trade routes and creating new vistas for economic growth.
However, most analysts and commentators, keeping in view the US President Donald Trump’s provocative remarks and social media posts, coupled with Benjamin Netanyahu’s highly blatant and heinous acts of killing innocent people, including women and children, in Gaza and Lebanon, are describing the arrangement as fragile rather than durable. Besides, several major disputes remain unresolved, including Iran’s nuclear programme, missile development project, sanctions imposed on Iran, regional proxy groups, and Israeli security concerns. These issues are precisely among the causes of the tensions that led to war in the first place.
The optimistic scenario is that the ceasefire continues, saving the world from further destruction and paving the way for future negotiations and table talks in a peaceful and diplomatic manner. Trade resumes and brings a sigh of relief to states and peoples of the world, in general, and to those of the region, in particular. This will automatically lower the socio-political temperature of the concerned societies and quarters. The region gradually stabilises, progressive approaches prevail, and new projects of reconstruction and social development take place to heal the wounds of war. The middle scenario is that no full-scale war occurs, but frequent crises, threats, sanctions and occasional military incidents partially spoil global and regional peace and economic activities. Then, there would be long and short periods of tension interrupted by regular intervals of diplomatic engagement and peaceful phases. The pessimistic scenario is that the evil forces and wicked quarters, like Israel and its allies, play their highly obnoxious role to play havoc with the world and spoil the ongoing efforts for a durable peace agreement. A major mysterious incident causes the ceasefire to collapse and fighting resumes. Regional actors become involved again and the issue turns into a highly complicated and problematic one to resolve.
The economic repercussions of the conflict have already been substantial. Nearly one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, and disruptions in shipping during the conflict sent energy prices upward and unsettled global markets. Although the recent agreement has enabled a gradual resumption of maritime traffic, experts warn that damaged infrastructure, insurance complications and security concerns may continue to affect trade for months. Oil prices have eased following the ceasefire, but economists caution that the recovery of normal commercial activity will largely depend upon the durability of the agreement and the restoration of confidence among shipping companies and investors.
The war’s highly devastating socio-political, economic and psycho-mental impacts had been haunting global humanity since 28th February 2026; and for one or more years, the world will continue to bear the pain of unemployment, poverty, inflation and other such packages that this unprovoked and reckless misadventure imposed by two power-hungry leaders. Many analysts call this war and its inevitable consequences one of the gravest foreign policy blunders committed by any US President in modern history. On the one hand, much of the world condemned and criticised the United States and Israel for the bloodshed of innocent people, including infants and children, and for the far-reaching impacts of this war on the already struggling global economy. On the other hand, geopolitical, defence and strategic experts throughout the world have argued that the US power of deterrence and domination appeared weakened and deflated after this conflict.
The worst scenario, in this regard, is for the most unfortunate Middle Eastern Muslim states that spent enormous wealth welcoming the historical destruction of their assets, businesses, economies and even peace. Had they not relied heavily on US military power and protection and expended vast resources to establish and sustain military bases, they would not have been bombarded and humiliated in what otherwise seemed an irrelevant war. Thus, the nearly four-month-long saga has damaged alliances with the oil-rich and strategically prominent Arab monarchies of the Gulf, whose business model as islands of stability amid the turbulence of the Middle East may take years to repair. Their officials have already begun discussing diversification of their allegiances and reviewing policies towards Iran, their neighbour across the Gulf waters. China, meanwhile, will be observing the entire episode closely, as the United States has consumed and depleted hard-to-replace stocks of weapons while gradually descending from its ivory tower-the pedestal of power and dominance.
History often judges leaders less by whether they won a battle and more by whether they achieved durable political goals. Military success, strategic success and political success are not always the same thing. Historically speaking, the United States won most major battles in the Vietnam War and the War in Afghanistan, yet historians still debate whether the broader political objectives were achieved. Likewise, Iran’s future standing will depend not only upon military events but also upon its economic recovery, regional influence and diplomatic relationships in the years ahead.
Iran, being on the passive side in the whole series of unprovoked aggression, has emerged gracefully on moral grounds, gaining sympathy from various corners of global society. Besides, in retaliation as a sovereign and respectable nation, it fought bravely, dignifiedly and meticulously and surprisingly altered the opinions of many defence and warfare experts. On its internal fronts, it became stronger, more united and more solid from within.
The United States may have demonstrated military power, while Iran may have demonstrated resilience. Whether either side achieved a lasting strategic victory remains uncertain and will only become clear with time. But one aspect is purely vivid and crystal clear: devastation and bloodshed can never bring forth victory-a positive scenario. Humanity is the loser in every war. Every individual who becomes fuel for battles and conflicts is a parent, a child, a sibling, a spouse or a beloved companion of someone.
“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.”
