Each time diplomacy returns to the Middle East, it promises de-escalation, stability, perhaps even peace. Yet for those in Gaza, such promises have become part of a familiar cycle—violence, pause, and violence again. In the current confrontation involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, the language of peace is once again gaining ground. Envoys are active, backchannels are open, and cautious optimism is being carefully staged. But what is emerging may not be peace at all. It may be another way of managing war.
The region has seen this script before. Escalation produces urgency, urgency produces diplomacy, and diplomacy produces agreements that promise stability. For a moment, tensions recede. Then they return. Not because peace failed, but because it was never designed to succeed. What is often presented as resolution is, in practice, recalibration.
At the centre of this pattern lies a structural imbalance that cannot be ignored. The United States is not simply facilitating dialogue; it is shaping its limits.
As a principal actor aligned with Israel, Washington does not stand above the conflict—it operates within it. A peace process led by a party to the war is less a negotiation than an exercise in control.
The outcome is not a balanced settlement, but a managed equilibrium that reduces immediate risk while preserving the underlying hierarchy of power.
This imbalance is reflected in the expectations placed on Iran. It is asked to limit its capabilities, scale back its regional influence, and demonstrate compliance with international demands. In return, it is offered conditional relief—partial sanctions easing, informal assurances, and the possibility of reduced pressure. But conditional relief is not security. It can be withdrawn as quickly as it is granted, leaving the core mistrust intact and the strategic imbalance unchanged.
READ: Khamenei adviser dismisses Trump threats, says Iran controls key supply routes
What emerges from such arrangements is not peace, but a reordering of tension. Each side continues to act in ways it sees as defensive, yet each move deepens the other’s sense of threat.
Stability, in this context, is not built on trust, but on calculation—and calculations shift. Violence is not ending; it is being rearranged.
Nowhere is this more visible than in Gaza. Despite being one of the most devastated arenas of conflict, Gaza is consistently treated as a secondary issue in regional diplomacy. It is addressed through humanitarian mechanisms—aid deliveries, temporary ceasefires—while its underlying political reality remains largely untouched. This separation is not incidental; it is strategic.
A framework that speaks of regional stability while Gaza remains structurally trapped in cycles of destruction is not resolving conflict—it is containing it. Violence does not disappear; it is displaced, concentrated, and, over time, normalised. What is called peace becomes, for some, simply a quieter form of war.
The role of non-state actors further exposes the limits of current approaches. Groups such as Hezbollah and the Houthis are often described as spoilers, as if they exist outside the system. In reality, they are products of it. They emerge from the same insecurities, governance gaps, and strategic calculations that shape state behaviour.
Containing these actors without addressing the conditions that sustain them does not eliminate conflict—it redistributes it. Pressure in one arena produces escalation in another. What appears as stability is often a temporary shift in the geography of violence.
Beyond the region, global power competition reinforces these dynamics. Strategic interests involving China and Russia intersect with U.S. policy, embedding the conflict within a wider geopolitical contest. Stability is pursued selectively—prioritised where it protects trade routes or energy flows, but inconsistently applied when it comes to human cost.
For many in the Global South, this pattern is neither new nor surprising. It reflects a broader reality in which the language of international order coexists with practices that sustain inequality. Peace is invoked as a universal principle, yet its application remains uneven. Some crises demand urgent resolution; others are managed, deferred, or absorbed into the status quo.
READ: Trump calls US naval blockade of Strait of Hormuz ‘a very profitable business’
This raises a fundamental question: what would it take for a peace process to do more than recycle conflict? At a minimum, it would require reciprocity rather than asymmetry. Obligations would need to apply across all parties, not primarily to those with less power.
Security guarantees would need to be credible and enforceable, not conditional and reversible. And critically, the Palestinian question—particularly the reality in Gaza—would need to move from the margins to the centre of any meaningful negotiation.
Because without addressing Gaza, there is no regional stability—only the illusion of it.
Equally important is the need to move beyond a narrow reliance on deterrence. Deterrence may delay escalation, but it does not remove the conditions that make escalation likely. When fear becomes the organising principle of security, conflict does not end—it adapts.
What is being proposed today risks following a familiar script. Tensions rise, diplomacy intervenes, agreements are announced, and for a brief moment, the region appears to stabilise. But without structural change, the underlying dynamics remain intact. The cycle resumes—often with greater intensity.
This is why emerging “peace processes” must be approached with caution. Not because peace is undesirable, but because the form it takes matters. A process that lowers the visibility of violence without addressing its roots does not resolve conflict—it prolongs it.
Peace, if it is to be meaningful, cannot be reduced to the absence of immediate war. It must involve a transformation of the conditions that make war possible. Until then, what is presented as progress may be something else entirely: a pause that prepares the ground for the next round of confrontation.
The danger is not that peace will fail, but that it will succeed on its own terms—producing not justice, but a quieter, more durable form of war.
OPINION: Fragile ceasefire: The illusion of war’s end
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
