After three chaotic months of war, apocalyptic threats, and a blockade that choked the global economy, the United States’ war with Iran could be nearing an end – or a month-long pause at least. The deal, that is yet to be finalized, could see the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the cessation of hostilities against Iran and Lebanon and the gradual lifting of sanctions. While the deal is tentative and already being met with skepticism by powerful members of the US Congress, it is a reminder of the importance and necessity of following a diplomatic path in the resolution of this conflict. If anything this conflict has made clear that ultimatums and military attacks won’t end the stand off.
What is striking about this potential deal is the fact that the mediation is being led by countries in the Global South, with Pakistan in the lead, supported actively by Qatar and China, with backing from Oman, Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Notably absent from this massive diplomatic effort is the European Union and the United Nations, who have become irrelevant in mediation efforts in the Middle East and beyond. Unlike the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was negotiated by the United States behind the back of the Gulf region, this potential deal has their full support.
Meanwhile, in Gaza a ‘ceasefire’ that could be best described as a managed status quo, rather than a path to a political settlement, trudges on. More than 850 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed by the Israeli Defence Forces since the ceasefire in October 2025, with no political process on the horizon. As the Board of Peace “High Representative” Nickolay Mladenov said “the door to the future of Gaza is still closed,” for now and with 2 million Gazan’s compressed into a shrinking space, around 60 percent of which is occupied by Israeli forces, the future for Gaza looks bleak at best.
In Europe, Ukraine marches on into its fourth year of war with Russia, with negotiations stalled, and no end in sight. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed at a NATO summit in Sweden on May 22 that trilateral negotiations between the US, Russia and Ukraine were “on pause” and had not been “fruitful.” Russia is asking Ukraine to concede occupied territory before talks would continue and Ukraine is asking for security guarantees Western capitals seem unwilling to commit to.
In Sudan, after more than three years of fighting between the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese Armed Forces, the nation remains effectively split in two. This devastating war that has left 150,000 dead, displaced 9 million, and left 21 million facing acute hunger, is showing no sign of abating. With ineffective and competing international and regional mediation efforts, from the UN, to the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the African Union and other Gulf States unable to convene a single credible inclusive mediation process the conflict rages on. As Diplomacy Now contributors have argued in the past, an inclusive process must prioritize incorporating those with deep links to communities on the ground — civil society, women’s groups, and Popular Committees — rather than giving belligerents and the states that back them the sole seats at the table.
A thread that runs through all of these conflicts is the blatant flouting of international law as it relates to state sovereignty and the use of force. International law has taken repeated hits since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine to Gaza, to the US and Israeli strikes on Iran. What is clear is that great global powers continue to use international law as a ‘tactical instrument’ not as a binding framework. The Permanent Five of the UN Security Council continue to set different rules for their enemies and adversaries than their friends. And the Charter continues to be treated like a boy’s club pledge, optional and half heartedly and haphazardly adhered to, rather than a binding legal document that sets the standard for conduct by modern states. Consequently, the Global South now views the multilateral system as one that protects the powerful while constraining the weak.
However, for idealists and realists alike, most would agree things must change. With the International Monetary Fund predicting that global economic growth could drop to below two percent and inflation expected to exceed 6 percent, if the crisis in the Middle East continues, it is clear that conflicts and their consequences can no longer be contained. In nations where the cost of living is rising and with democratic governments and authoritarian regimes alike facing social unrest, diplomacy may be needed for more than just major conflicts. As all of these devastating conflicts illustrate, the high cost of war is always borne by those who had no role in starting it and there is no alternative to dialogue and diplomacy.
In this edition we feature articles on the leading role Pakistan has played in the negotiations between the US and Iran, the current crisis in Mali and the Sahel and the discord the Abraham Accords sowed in the Middle East. We also feature an article on diplomacy in the Horn of Africa, with meditations on the challenges of mediation, and conclude with an article on the impact of the conflict in Gaza and Iran on international law.
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.
Jamal Benomar
Chair of ICDI
Pakistani scholar Umer Karim traces how Pakistan unexpectedly became a key mediator in the US-Iran conflict, stepping in where mediators like the United Nations and the European Union have failed or lack credibility.
“Pakistan’s prominent role in mediating the Iran-US conflict can be considered rather natural owing to its geography and connections both with the Arab Gulf States and broader Middle East and also Iran. Yet it can be argued that the current diplomatic activism from Pakistan and its greater involvement in Middle Eastern security dynamics is rather new,” he writes.
“The renewal of conflict between US and Iran may compel Pakistan to take a side putting it in a considerably difficult position and tarnishing its credentials of a mediator. However, for the moment, Pakistan remains a positive example of a nation from the Global South, taking initiative in facilitating a major diplomatic negotiation.”
Dr Oluwole Ojewale examines the increasing violence in Mali and the crisis in mediation with the separation of Sahelian states from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
“The scale and spread of violence in Mali are more than a headline. They are a warning. They warn that jihadist and insurgent groups in the Sahel are adapting faster than states. They warn that urban centers are no longer insulated from rural insurgencies. And they warn that unless regional actors close ranks quickly, the arc of instability may deepen further into West Africa’s coastal belt. Mali today is the epicenter. But tomorrow, the consequences may be regional,” he writes.
Matt Duss, a former advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders and Zuri Linetsky explore how the Abraham Accords paved the way for the current conflicts in the Middle East.
“According to its proponents, the Abraham Accords were intended to strengthen military and economic cooperation between Israel and the Persian Gulf while also bringing a new “outside-in” approach to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” they write.
“In reality, the outside-in logic proved to be dangerously counterproductive, with Israeli-Gulf military cooperation leading to more risky and provocative behavior. Far from promoting peace and stability, the Abraham Accords laid the groundwork for a new era of violence, providing political cover for genocide in Gaza and enabling a reckless war against Iran,” they argue.
Veteran diplomat Abdul Mohammed explores the new complexities of mediation, in both the world at large and the Horn of Africa, in particular. He calls on African institutions and regional bodies to step up to the plate.
“The assumptions that once underpinned international peacemaking — shared norms, coherent multilateral leadership, and a broadly agreed international order — are steadily eroding. In their place is a far more fragmented and competitive geopolitical landscape, one in which conflicts have become increasingly regionalized, internationalized, and economically embedded,” he writes. “Nowhere is this more evident than in the Horn of Africa.”
Scholar Bakr Hazem Al-Zubaidy examines how the conflicts in Gaza and Iran have undermined international law and faith in the international order, particularly in the Middle East.
“International law is no longer suffering from violations alone. It is confronting a deeper crisis of credibility: a widening belief that rules that still exist on paper no longer bind the most powerful states in practice,” he writes.
“Gaza and Iran are not isolated crises but warning signs. If power continues to override law in the region with only selective diplomatic concern and no meaningful institutional consequence, the damage will extend well beyond the current wars,” he argues
Nelson Mandela
