The war clouds are lifting

2026-02-04 - 23:26

AS President Donald Trump intensified pressure on Iran with every passing moment, powerful naval fleets had already entered the region. It appeared as though there was a brief pause before a potential war. At such a time, I was reminded of Mr. Reza Amiri Moghaddam, the Iranian Ambassador, whom I happened to meet several times in close succession. One meeting included the distinguished Persian scholar, former Vice Chancellor of the University of the Punjab and head of the National Language Promotion Institute, Professor Dr. Muhammad Saleem Mazhar. Another was attended by respected intellectuals including Khurshid Ahmad Nadeem and Allama Arif Hussain Wahidi. These meetings took place at the headquarters of the National Rahmat-ul-lil-Alameen and Khatam-un-Nabiyyin Authority during the Ambassador’s visit. While our discussions with Mr. Amiri Moghaddam were not directly focused on immediate developments, they were nevertheless useful in understanding future risks and the possible consequences of a military confrontation. Is a war imminent? No one can answer this with certainty. Much depends on President Trump’s unpredictable temperament—what he declares at one moment and reverses the next. Still, his statements merit attention. His current position suggests that while military pressure is being increased around Iran, he does not desire an outright conflict. In practical terms, this means Washington wants Iran disarmed—not only without nuclear weapons, but also without the capacity to threaten the United States, its allies or Israel. The core American objective remains the security of Israel and the safety of US military bases in the Middle East. Western sources have reported that Iran is willing to negotiate with the United States but is not prepared to accept imposed demands, resulting in a complete diplomatic deadlock. If accurate, this is deeply troubling. Yet amid this stalemate, a ray of hope has emerged. Pakistan, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates are reportedly working to defuse tensions. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have contacted Iranian leaders, while parallel efforts aim to ensure that escalation does not disrupt vital oil transit routes. The diplomatic initiatives of Pakistan and Turkiye are particularly significant. Both countries maintain relations of trust with Iran while also possessing the credibility to engage Washington. Tehran places confidence in leaders such as Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Erdogan—figures who also carry weight in the United States. Collectively, these Muslim countries retain the capacity to alter the strategic equation. Their diplomatic efforts are wide-ranging and aimed at achieving an honourable settlement without humiliation for any party. Possible terms under discussion include Iran’s formal readiness for negotiations, a declaration that it does not seek nuclear weapons and a reduction in the effectiveness of its missile program. Equally important is preventing any disruption to global oil supply lines. Success in these efforts would allow all sides to step back without claiming victory or suffering defeat. Iran has never categorically rejected dialogue, but it remains unwilling to compromise its sovereignty. Identifying a point of convergence in this standoff is precisely what Pakistan and parts of the Muslim world are attempting. Pakistan’s improved relations with the United States, alongside Saudi Arabia’s regional influence, have become increasingly relevant. Notably, Iran’s neighbouring countries have refused to provide logistical support for any attack on Iranian territory. Such a display of unity in the Muslim world is rare and significant. If, however, the deadlock persists and war becomes the only remaining option, Iran could be targeted from US naval forces. Such attacks would be far more intense than those of the past. Previous aerial strikes failed to fracture the bond between the Iranian public and the state. Anti-government protests, once perceived as serious threats, ultimately proved transient. Ambassador Amiri Moghaddam illustrated this by noting that public counter-mobilization resembled a torrential rain that swept away rebellion like airborne pollution—leaving no lasting impact. This reality remains unchanged. There is concern that renewed strikes could target Iran’s leadership and defensive infrastructure to weaken the state and embolden dissidents. Such a scenario would be extremely dangerous. Yet Iran has learned from past confrontations and prepared counter-strategies. Precision attacks similar to those seen in earlier conflicts would not be easily replicated. If hostilities escalate, the intensity of war would surpass previous episodes, with Israel likely bearing the greatest cost. US military bases would also become targets. This would not be a regional war alone; it would shake the global system. For this reason, China and Russia—without becoming direct parties to the conflict—are also working to reduce tensions. The hope remains that war will be avoided and an honourable compromise achieved. If not, the United States and its allies will face a fundamentally different Iran, where the prospects of regime change are far weaker than the likelihood of severe damage to attacking forces and their interests. The renewed willingness of all parties to negotiate, including meetings hosted in Turkiye, suggests that strategic realism has prevailed and that the clouds of war may yet disperse. —This writer is former advisor to the President of Pakistan, author & mass media theorist. (farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)