Dr. Seyed Yasar Jabrayili

These days, a set of five conditions for ending the war has been put forward in the country’s official media, as stated by a political-security official. These conditions include an end to aggression and terror, creating guarantees that the war will not be repeated, paying compensation, stopping the conflict on all fronts, and recognizing Iran’s sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. At first glance, these conditions may seem logical, but if we look at them carefully and from a strategic perspective, we see significant flaws in them. The main problem is that this type of bet is more like a normative statement than a tool for consolidating field achievements.

The fact is that in the current situation, many international analysts believe that Iran has the upper hand in this asymmetric battle. Reports have even been published in media outlets such as the New York Times indicating that a number of US bases in the region have become practically unusable. The disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has put significant pressure on the global economy and increased oil prices. In such circumstances, it is not logical for field superiority to be transformed into vague demands that are neither verifiable nor necessarily in the hands of the other party.

One of the most important drawbacks of these conditions is the issue of “guaranteeing the non-recurrence of war.” In the international system, there is basically no such thing as a real guarantee of non-recurrence of war. Historical experiences, including agreements such as the JCPOA, have shown that great powers can easily withdraw from their commitments. In an anarchic international system, what prevents war is not a commitment on paper, but a change in the calculation of the costs and benefits of the other party. That is, conditions must be created in which an attack is fundamentally uneconomical for the enemy.

The condition regarding the payment of war reparations may be the only clause that can have a practical function, but even this clause becomes a mere political demand if it does not have an enforcement and collectable mechanism. In the history of international relations, compensation makes sense when the victorious side can impose it within the framework of a balance of power; not simply as a moral demand.

The condition regarding the cessation of attacks on the resistance fronts faces the same problem. If the cost of action against these forces remains high, the attacks will stop even without an agreement. But if the cost is low, even with an agreement and a signature, there is no guarantee that the conflict will stop. Therefore, the real way is to strengthen deterrence and increase the cost of any military action against these fronts; not to rely on verbal commitments.

The strangest part of the story is perhaps the condition regarding the recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. Sovereignty in such strategic points is formed by the “exercise of power,” not by the approval of a foreign power. Basically, whether a country like the United States wants to recognize Iranian sovereignty in this region or not is not a decisive legal issue. If the ability to exercise sovereignty exists, there is no need to obtain such approval.

The important point is that when a country has managed to change the balance of power in the field, it must convert this change into sustainable gains. Converting a practical advantage into a political demand is, in fact, lowering the level of play from “power realities” to “diplomatic statements”; something that may undermine field achievements.

Ultimately, the main question is: when the cost of war for the other side has risen and economic and political pressures have increased, is it not time to demand practical and irreversible concessions? In international relations, the common language is power. Diplomacy succeeds when it is based on power. If an achievement has been achieved in the field, the art of politics is to consolidate that achievement; not to turn it into an ineffective agreement at the political level.

The Ruler; A Deep Narrative of Politics and Economics