By Ephraim Agbo
Sometimes, silence is more terrifying than war.
The bombs have stopped falling. The headlines have quieted. But across the Middle East—and in diplomatic circles around the world—no one is breathing easy. Not really.
Because when Iran and Israel ended their 12-day missile exchange with a U.S.-brokered ceasefire, it didn’t feel like the beginning of peace. It felt like a pause in something far from over.
The Anatomy of a Broken Process
Let’s start with what we know.
On June 13, Israel launched a surprise airstrike on Iranian nuclear sites, claiming Iran was dangerously close to building a bomb. Iran responded with missile barrages. Hundreds died—soldiers, scientists, civilians. The U.S. stepped in, bombed three more Iranian sites, then called for peace.
The irony is hard to ignore: you can’t set the fire and then pose as the fireman.
Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, didn’t mince words in an interview days later:
“We were preparing to talk. Two days before negotiations, they bombed us. That’s not diplomacy. That’s betrayal.”
If true, the betrayal wasn’t just strategic—it was deeply personal. A slap to a nation that had already faced sanctions, sabotage, and assassinations, yet still agreed to sit at the table.
Diplomacy with a Loaded Gun
This is where the emotional weight meets cold strategy.
Israel’s strikes weren’t random. They were about survival—or so they believe. For decades, Israeli foreign policy has been anchored in one brutal lesson from history: Never wait until it’s too late.
So when uranium levels in Iran reached 60%, the alarm bells went off. And Israel responded in the only language it believes Iran understands—force.
From their perspective, it wasn’t aggression. It was insurance. A desperate act to prevent an existential threat.
But here’s the twist: Iran says it was enriching uranium for peaceful reasons—medical research, power generation, and its own sense of sovereignty. And while skeptics scoff at this, one has to ask: Why talk peace with a country you're trying to bomb into compliance?
The U.S. Caught Between Peace and Power
Then there’s the United States—the supposed mediator, the dominant power, the architect of both destruction and diplomacy.
Washington’s role in this crisis is perhaps the most complex—and the most controversial.
The U.S. has long claimed to be a defender of global peace. But in this case, it played all sides:
- It supported Israel’s right to self-defense,
- Launched its own strikes on Iran, and
- Brokered the ceasefire.
It’s a dizzying contradiction.
And for Tehran, it’s more than confusing—it’s enraging.
“They betrayed dialogue, diplomacy, and even basic decency,” Takht-Ravanchi said, his voice not just angry, but weary. “Now they want us to trust them again?”
Beyond Blame: The Real Crisis Is Trust
This isn’t just about missiles or uranium. It’s about something far more fragile—and far more powerful: trust.
Without trust, diplomacy dies.
And right now, there’s very little of it left:
- Iran doesn’t trust the U.S. to negotiate in good faith.
- Israel doesn’t trust Iran to stop short of a nuclear bomb.
- And the U.S.? It’s trying to lead a process that it may have already sabotaged.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world watches—some in outrage, some in silence, some in quiet I-told-you-sos.
Inside Iran: Fear and Defiance on the Home Front
Back in Tehran, fear runs parallel to fury.
The government is tightening security. Arrests are rising. Parliament wants to suspend nuclear inspections and even pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Some say it’s just posturing. Others say it’s the beginning of a real turn inward.
There’s also a growing sense of pride—of defiance. That even if the world turns its back on Iran, Iran will not beg for peace. Not anymore.
But here’s the tragedy: ordinary people are paying the price. The scientists. The students. The shopkeepers who just want to live normal lives without sanctions, sirens, or surveillance.
And Still—No Easy Answers
It’s tempting to take sides. But this isn’t a Hollywood script. There are no clean heroes or villains here. Only nations acting out of fear, memory, ambition, and necessity.
Still, some questions beg for answers:
- Can peace talks resume after missile strikes?
- Can any country claim moral high ground when it bombs first and negotiates later?
- And will the world continue to justify aggression when it comes from its allies, but condemn it when it comes from its rivals?
If diplomacy is to mean anything, it must apply consistently—not selectively. Otherwise, the very idea of international law becomes a farce.
Final Word: A Ceasefire Without Confidence
So, is the ceasefire real?
Technically, yes. But emotionally? Politically? Strategically? Not yet.
Iran has said it will respect the truce as long as no one attacks them again. But the tone is clear: Try us again, and we won’t hold back.
Israel is quiet but on alert. The U.S. says it wants peace, but hasn’t said what it's willing to give for it. And across the Middle East, people are bracing for the next headline. Because it’s not over.
Not by a long shot.
No comments:
Post a Comment