It has been a tumultuous few months for diplomacy and the world at large. The United States and Israel attacked Iran for the second time in a year, despite the fact that it did not pose an immediate threat. The Islamic Republic retaliated with strikes on Israel, and US military assets in the region, and civilian infrastructure in Gulf states. Iran also effectively blocked the world’s oil pipeline – the Strait of Hormuz – sending shockwaves through the global economy. The conflict, and the rhetoric surrounding it, reads like the script of a bad Hollywood film. But the damage is real and yet another reminder why we need good, skillful and principled diplomacy more than ever.
More optimistically, April also saw Pakistan, a country from the Global South, take centre stage in one of the most important diplomatic negotiations in recent history. Pakistan brokered a 14-day ceasefire between the US and Iran, two longtime diplomatic foes who have not met face to face for almost half a century. However while the deal brought some respite from a conflict that has destroyed Gulf and Iranian infrastructure and is estimated to have killed thousands of civilians, it fell short of brokering a substantive peace agreement.
The failure of the negotiations was understandable, as little groundwork was done. Discussions started straight at the highest level. US envoys with greater expertise in real estate and business than diplomacy, parleyed with their Iranian counterparts who had expertise from years of previous nuclear negotiations. For such a high level meeting to be successful it needed to be preceded by a great deal of serious preparation. The nuclear deal, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) of 2015, took 20 months of intensive negotiations. It took close to two years to reach the Good Friday Agreement that ended the conflict in Northern Ireland. Serious diplomacy requires intensive preparations, the use of specialized expertise, and seasoned experienced diplomats, courage and perseverance.
The US came out with a 15-point proposal demanding Iran accept its terms for capitulation as a defeated nation and commit to no nuclear weapons, surrender its highly enriched uranium stockpile, accept limits on its defense capabilities, end support for regional groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, reopen the Strait of Hormuz and recognize Israel’s right to exist. In response, Iran came out with its own 10-point proposal, which included “acceptance of enrichment” for its nuclear program, lifting of sanctions against Iran, and end to hostilities and US military withdrawal from the Middle East, and calling for reparations for the US and Israel’s attack against it and a ceasefire against both Iran and Lebanon. However, the fundamental problem lay in the fact that there was too much of a gulf between the demands of both states to come to an agreement.
That said, Pakistan must be applauded for bringing the two rivals to the table. Pakistan’s leadership in these negotiations points to a significant shift in modern diplomacy underway. The credibility of Western countries, including the European Union, has been undermined by their lack of moral clarity on the war on Gaza and the US’s strikes on Iran, another sovereign nation. Countries like Spain and Norway, who called the strikes illegal, have stood out as lone voices on a continent that claims to be the birthplace and vanguard of international law and universal human rights.
With the deadlock in the Security Council, the declining role of the UN Secretary General in Ukraine, Gaza, and now Iran, and the dithering positions and diminishing credibility of EU countries, new diplomatic players such as Oman, Qatar, Turkey, China and Pakistan are emerging. And with Gulf States coming to the realization that the US alone cannot protect them from attacks from their neighbours, there could be a major shake-up in diplomatic alliances in the Middle East.
However, harsh diplomatic lessons are already emerging from the US and Israel’s second bout with Iran – that President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu seemed to assume that the war would end in regime change. Many analysts have argued that the US and Israel’s targeted assassinations of Iran’s leadership, did not lead to regime change, but rather hardened leadership. Iran has been militarily weakened but clearly will not capitulate. The regime will most likely be emboldened to develop nuclear weapons, as a previous Diplomacy Now contributor suggested. What’s more is the Iranian state might become even more repressive towards its citizens. The lesson from past conflicts around the world is that coercive military pressure is no substitute for genuine diplomacy. Military pressure alone usually never produces durable settlements, and while this may lead to temporary suppression it is usually followed by renewed conflict.
The UN’s record on this conflict has been one of structural and perhaps even moral paralysis. The Security Council condemned Iran’s retaliatory strikes, but it could not pass a resolution condemning the initiating attacks on February 28. Russia’s limited proposal calling for civilian protection and a ceasefire was blocked by Western P5 members. Bahrain initiated a resolution on the Strait of Hormuz that was generally described by Russia and China as biased against Iran, with both countries vetoing it. The Council condemned Iran once, but failed to condemn the US strikes that started the war. The SC failed on every substantive dimension of the crisis. But this failure has been seen in recent years, from every conflict from Ukraine to Gaza, and points to a fault within the UN’s current peace and security architecture. The veto system, as it is currently used, doesn’t just block action, it actively distorts the normative record, by making selective condemnation possible, and comprehensive accountability impossible. Resolution 2817, that solely condemns Iran, will stand as the UNSC’s primary record on this conflict, and will add to a record that continues to corrode faith in the UN. The UN and the Secretary General in particular, who is mandated to carry out good offices, once again chooses to remain on the sidelines.
The EU has technical expertise on nuclear verification and sanctions that could be valuable in these negotiations, but only if the EU stops operating as a political extension of US policy and becomes more independent. Although the talks in Islamabad have not advanced so far, the ceasefire is under pressure and the Strait of Hormuz remains a source of global economic turmoil. Diplomacy is the only way forward, and countries from the Global South and the Middle East region in particular, have no other option but to persevere in their mediation efforts.
In this edition of Diplomacy Now we feature articles on the diplomatic crisis facing Gulf states who were dragged into the conflict, and the violations of international law that have taken place thus far. We also feature an article that reflects on Omani mediation efforts in the current conflict, the ongoing turmoil in Lebanon, and the legacy of a late former UN diplomat that offers a moment for critical reflection about the future modern diplomacy.
As with every edition the views expressed by contributors are not all necessarily our own. However, ICDI remains committed to the ethos and philosophy that open debate, dialogue, diplomacy, and mediation, rather than armed conflict and war, offer the way forward to resolving any conflict.
Thank you for reading Diplomacy Now and we welcome your feedback at diplomacynow@dialogueinitiatives.org.
ICDI Chair
Gulf expert Giorgio Cafiero explores the new challenges facing Gulf Arab states that found themselves in the crossfire of the US and Israel’s war with Iran.
“The damage inflicted has also accelerated the erosion of confidence in the US as a credible and effective security guarantor in the Gulf,” he writes.
“While no alternative power can readily replace Washington in the near term, the events since February 28 are certain to intensify discussions within GCC capitals about diversifying defense partnerships and reducing reliance on the US. At the same time, Gulf Arab states are likely to place greater emphasis on self-reliance, investing more heavily in indigenous capabilities to better shield themselves from external threats,” he adds.
International legal scholar Yusra Suedi explores the violations of international law that occurred in the attacks against Iran, and the global response to it.
“The US-Israeli strikes on Iran had no valid legal justification. Under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, a state may use force against another only with Security Council authorisation or in genuine self-defence against an armed attack. In this instance, neither condition was met,” she writes.
“If this conflict has demonstrated anything, it is not that international law is dead — it is that it is indispensable. Every violation has been accompanied by a legal justification, however strained. Every violation creates a greater desire for negotiation that returns, however reluctantly, to the same foundational rules,” she continues.
Lebanese scholar Dr. Malek Abou Hamdan delves into the conflict between Hezbollah and the new central government and the military threat posed by Israel.
“Lebanon’s current crisis cannot be understood — or resolved — purely within its domestic context. It is intrinsically linked to broader regional questions: how to address Israeli threats’ dynamics, how to position Lebanon within ongoing conflicts, and how emerging geopolitical balances will reshape the Middle East,” he writes.
“Without a broader framework for de-escalation and negotiated settlement at the regional level, internal stabilization in Lebanon is likely to remain elusive,” he argues.
Middle East scholar Dr. Gabriele Vom Bruck explores Oman’s attempts to avert a conflict between the US-Israel and Iran, and takes readers on a deep dive of the military and diplomatic manoeuvers that preceded the war, and their consequences for Gulf states.
“Oman’s foreign minister Badr Albusa‘idi, may be the only hero in this tragic war between the United States and Israel and Iran. Diplomacy has become the first casualty of this conflict,” she writes.
“As became clear soon after the beginning of hostilities, the current conflict does not merely involve the US and Israel in its confrontation with Iran. It has morphed into a multi-front war against all five members of the ‘Axis of Resistance’ (Iran, Hezbollah and Ansar Allah in Yemen, Hamas, and various militia groups in Iraq) which is also threatening the economic viability of the Gulf,” she adds.
Veteran diplomat Abdul Mohammed gives tribute to friend and colleague Nicholas “Fink” Haysom, former representative of the Secretary General in South Sudan. An anti-apartheid lawyer and activist “Fink” represented what Mohammed describes as a “fading breed” of diplomats who listened, understood the political complexities of the conflicts they helped mediate and were committed to reaching settlements even if they took months.
“Nicholas “Fink” Haysom, who passed away last month, was not just another senior United Nations diplomat. He belonged to a fading breed: those who approached diplomacy and peacemaking not simply as a profession, but as a vocation. For him, diplomacy was never about position or protocol. It was about purpose, conviction, and an enduring commitment to humanity,” Mohammed writes.
“The erosion of such principled diplomats is increasingly at the heart of the failure of contemporary mediation to avert, manage, and resolve conflicts. Where their presence once ensured depth, legitimacy, and coherence, their absence is often filled by fragmented initiatives, externally driven agendas, and short-term arrangements that lack both vision and sustainability,” Mohammed argues
Nelson Mandela
