Wars are terrible instruments of policy. But history shows they are also powerful instruments of leverage. When guns fall silent, battlefield advantage can often be converted into diplomatic advantage. The question for Iran, if negotiations emerge from the current crisis, is not merely how to end the war—it is how to use the moment to reshape the political architecture of the Middle East.
Too often, wars in the region end in narrow arrangements that solve nothing. A ceasefire is declared, the front lines freeze, sanctions remain in place, and the deeper conflicts continue to simmer until the next round of violence erupts. That cycle has defined the region for decades. If diplomacy follows this war, repeating that pattern would be a historic mistake.
This is a unique opportunity. Neither Israel nor the US expected a protracted war, and their overall calculations regarding their desired outcome have turned out poorly. With the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, it is not only the reduction in oil and natural gas exports that is causing a hike in energy prices, but also the major global dependence on Sulphur, Fertilizers, and Helium exports from the region, which is having a devastating impact. An extended war, or further regional conflict, would be catastrophic. In addition, Iran’s continuous bombing of Israel and its neighbors in the southern Persian Gulf, has been devastating, and shows no sign of abatement.
Iran, therefore, enters these negotiations in a very strong position with the ability to make several obvious demands. Relief of Sanctions must be on the table; an economy cannot be expected to function indefinitely under a permanent regime of economic siege. Reparations for wartime damage will also be part of the conversation, as they are after nearly every major conflict. And perhaps most importantly from Tehran’s perspective, the presence of U.S. military forces across the region would have to be reconsidered.
For years, Iran has argued that the vast network of American bases—from Bahrain and Qatar to Iraq and Syria—creates an artificial military pressure system around its borders. Whether one agrees with that view or not, the argument will almost certainly be central in any negotiations. If the war produces a diplomatic settlement, Tehran will push for a reduction or withdrawal of U.S. forces from the region as part of a broader security arrangement.
But if Iran limits its ambitions to sanctions relief and troop withdrawals, it will have missed a much larger opportunity. The underlying causes of the conflict need to be considered. There must be a systematic approach to the problem. This war did not emerge from a vacuum. It is embedded in a regional structure that has been unstable for generations: unresolved territorial disputes, the absence of a Palestinian state, competing military alliances, and a nuclear imbalance that remains largely unaddressed.
If negotiations are going to happen anyway, the moment should be used to address those structural problems rather than postpone them yet again. Indeed, if the Ukraine peace negotiations are to serve as a useful case study, there were multiple “Minsk (Peace) Agreements” that were completely undermined by the United States, Europe, and Ukraine’s dual national (Israeli-Ukrainian) Leader (Zelensky). Peace negotiations with the United States or its allies are useless; their record of honoring agreements is very poor. Indeed, Iran was in the midst of two separate negotiations with the US, which apparently were running smoothly, when, surprisingly, war broke out each time.
Without these underlying issues being addressed, the deals mean nothing.
At the center of that conversation sits Israel and its regional conflicts. For decades, the international community has treated it as a problem to be managed rather than resolved. Endless rounds of talks have produced interim agreements, temporary arrangements, and partial understandings—but never a final settlement.
A serious diplomatic framework emerging from this war would have to revisit that question directly. The creation of a fully independent Palestinian state alongside Israel remains the only solution that has ever commanded broad international support. Yet the political will to implement it has repeatedly evaporated.
If negotiations are underway, that issue cannot remain permanently deferred. The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is not merely a local dispute; it is one of the central fault lines shaping politics across the Middle East. Any attempt to build a durable regional peace that ignores it is unlikely to succeed.
Closely tied to this question are the territories whose status remains unresolved: Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and contested areas along the Lebanese border. These places have served as flashpoints for decades. Any genuine regional settlement would have to address their status within a broader framework of security guarantees and internationally recognized borders.
Another possibility— periodically proposed in diplomatic circles—is the internationalization of Jerusalem, under UN jurisdiction.
Few cities in the world carry the symbolic weight of Jerusalem. It is sacred to multiple faiths and claimed politically by competing national movements. For that reason, some have argued that the city might ultimately function better as an international district rather than the exclusive capital of any single state.
Under such a model, Jerusalem would be administered under a United Nations mandate, with protections for all religious communities and guaranteed access to holy sites. In a more ambitious version of the idea, the city could become a permanent international hub for diplomacy, hosting major UN institutions – such as the Security Council and the General Assembly – as well as global forums. Jerusalem is uniquely positioned to support major business time zones around the world. It is a natural site for a reformed and transformed United Nations.
It is time to revisit the overall structure of the United Nations, which has been completely unable to address these regional conflicts and Israel’s continuous defiance of its resolutions. I will save it for another blog, but I believe the UN should be transformed into a United Unions (with 12 Unions [US, Russia, China, India, EU, CANZUK, AU, AL, UNASUR, ASEAN, MEDIA, etc] at the Security Council, and all its agency activities distributed to 12 Union Capitals around the world). The UN is too large, too bureaucratic, and too ineffective. It’s time for a major change.
The symbolism of Jerusalem would be powerful: a city that has been fought over for centuries can become a center of international governance.
History shows that seemingly impossible proposals sometimes become feasible in the aftermath of major geopolitical shocks. The creation of the United Nations itself was born from the devastation of World War II.
A broader regional settlement would also have to confront the nuclear question.
For decades, diplomats have discussed the possibility of the overall region becoming free of nuclear weapons. The idea appears regularly in international forums but has never been realized. The region today exists in a strange strategic imbalance: some states operate under strict nuclear restrictions while others are widely believed to possess nuclear capabilities outside the formal non-proliferation framework. It is patently unbalanced to ask Iran to abandon any nuclear ambitions without Israel having to do the same.
Any long-term security arrangement would eventually have to address that imbalance. A credible regional denuclearization framework—if it could be negotiated—would require unprecedented transparency, verification mechanisms, and security guarantees from the world’s major powers.
None of this would be easy. In fact, most of it would be extraordinarily difficult.
But the alternative is to repeat the same pattern that has defined regional diplomacy for generations: end the war, patch together a temporary arrangement, and leave the underlying conflicts unresolved until the next explosion.
Moments of crisis sometimes create narrow openings for structural change. Political leaders who were unwilling to compromise in normal times may become more flexible when confronted with the costs of prolonged instability.
If negotiations follow this war, the real question will not simply be how to end a particular confrontation between Iran, Israel, and the United States.
The real question will be whether the moment is used to rethink the regional order itself.
History rarely offers such opportunities. When it does, the decisions made in those moments can shape the geopolitical landscape for decades to come.
Leave a Reply