Mohammed Mufti

And the War Returned.. Has Diplomacy Failed?!

July 24, 2026 - 00:00 | Last updated July 24, 2026 - 00:00

Follow Okaz channel on WhatsApp

At a time when many believed the war between the United States and Iran was nearing its end, the drums of war beat once more. That is the scene today as military confrontation between the US and Iran resumes, after a period in which many thought it could open the door to a long truce, and possibly a political settlement ending years of bitter tension. However, recent events have brought the region back to square one, proving that fragile peace cannot last unless based on agreements that address the root causes of the crisis, not just its symptoms.

The question that imposes itself today is not about who fired the first shot, but rather about the reasons for the return of war in the first place, and why all the efforts made during the past period failed to build understandings that would prevent a recurrence of this scenario. Clearly, the answer reveals that the crisis between Washington and Tehran was never a passing dispute that could be contained by a temporary truce, but rather a strategic conflict in which considerations of security, influence, economy, and regional and international alliances intersect.

There is no doubt that temporary agreements can delay an explosion, but they cannot address the underlying causes. Whenever the fighting fronts calm down, unresolved issues resurface: from the Iranian nuclear program to economic sanctions, to regional influence and the security of sea lanes. These issues cannot be resolved by military force alone, nor can they be solved simply by issuing political statements calling for restraint.

War, no matter how technologically precise, does not create lasting stability. It may achieve limited military objectives, but it opens new doors to crises. The effects of reciprocal strikes are not confined to the parties to the conflict but extend to the entire region, impacting the global economy, energy markets, and supply chains. Hence, the world does not view the US-Iran confrontation as a bilateral crisis between two parties, but as a threat to overall international stability.

What is most worrying is that the region can no longer bear a new war. The Middle East is experiencing a different phase from past decades; economic development, attracting investments, and implementing major projects have become top priorities for many of its countries. These priorities require a stable environment, not an atmosphere of tension and anxiety. Investors seek security before profits, markets are influenced by rumors before facts, and any military escalation quickly affects confidence in the economy. Moreover, the continuation of war places the international community before a difficult test: will it suffice to issue statements of concern and calls for calm, or will it move more effectively to bring the parties back to the negotiating table? Experience has shown that merely managing crises does not prevent their recurrence, and that true peace requires addressing the roots of conflict, not postponing the explosion until another date.

On the other hand, the importance of diplomacy should not be underestimated - even if it seems today incapable of halting escalation. History is full of wars that ended at the negotiating table after military force failed to resolve them decisively. Therefore, a return to dialogue is not a sign of weakness, but a reflection of a genuine realization that continued confrontation entails mutual losses, and that the cost of war often far exceeds any political or military gains. It is certain that the countries of the region are following these developments with concern, because any expansion of the conflict will have repercussions beyond the borders of the warring states, affecting international trade, financial markets, energy security, and maritime navigation.

War has unfortunately returned, but we must not lose hope. The alternative to dialogue is not decisive victory, but more destruction and uncertainty. If force can change the balance of battles, it alone cannot build sustainable peace. Only political will, supported by a realistic vision and international responsibility, can transform a temporary truce into lasting stability. The question that now arises strongly is: Has diplomacy been given enough opportunity to succeed? History teaches us that wars begin with a decision, but they only end with another, more courageous decision - a decision that puts the interest of peoples above the calculations of conflict, and makes peace a goal, not just a temporary truce. Between the voice of weapons and the voice of reason, hope remains that the choice that preserves lives, safeguards stability, and gives the region the opportunity it deserves to build a more secure and prosperous future will prevail.