On April 28, an emergency consultative summit was held in Jeddah, coinciding with a period of fragile ceasefire achieved through Pakistani mediation. Despite cautious optimism about negotiating progress, the results were limited. This again raised the question: is the current process a step toward a real settlement or merely temporary management of a protracted regional crisis whose consequences have extended far beyond the Middle East?
Heavy military strikes by the US and Israel on key Iranian defense facilities and leadership did not lead to the collapse or political elimination of the regime. On the contrary, these actions pushed the parties to the negotiating table in search of a new model of relations. It became clear that military force alone cannot secure a comprehensive political settlement, and attempts to force Tehran into a state of complete “weakness” face serious difficulties.
The conflict has moved into a phase that is hard to classify, which experts describe as a state of “neither war nor peace.” This is not a return to the status quo, but a shift to a more complex and ambiguous confrontation using unconventional tools. Iran continues to rely on proxy networks, maritime threats in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb, and targeted attacks that are difficult to fully neutralize.
International and regional reactions focus on a policy of “threat management” and a tactic of “mowing the grass” — periodic strikes on Iranian capabilities without an aim to forcibly change the regime. This approach reduces the costs of full-scale confrontation but does not eliminate the root causes of tension, freezing the conflict for many years without prospects for a final solution.
For the Gulf states, it becomes critically important to redefine the concept of deterrence. The traditional threat of total war has lost effectiveness, giving way to tasks aimed at preventing limited attacks through strengthening air defense, protecting critical infrastructure, and developing “strategic resilience.” Increasing attention is being paid to achieving “relative independence in deterrence” by localizing the defense industry and building national capabilities.
The role of communication channels and strategic discipline grows as tools to prevent uncontrolled escalation. Maritime security and protection of domestic space become key priorities: ensuring freedom of navigation and uninterrupted energy flows deprives Iran of an important lever of pressure. Ultimately, the survival of the Iranian regime implies a transformation of the conflict into a more persistent form, and the challenge for the Gulf is not a rapid end to the confrontation but long-term management of it through a balanced mix of deterrence, resilience, and diplomacy.
Comments on the news
Which proxy forces does Iran use in the region and how do they affect the conflict? — Iran relies on a network of non-state armed groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, various Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria (for example, Kataib Hezbollah), as well as Palestinian groups such as HAMAS. These forces act as military allies, extending Iranian influence across the Middle East without directly drawing Tehran into conflicts. In the current crisis they are used to attack Israeli and American targets and to disrupt shipping in the Red Sea, creating multi-vector pressure on adversaries.
Why is the Strait of Hormuz so important to Iran and what does it control? — The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic narrow passage in the Persian Gulf through which about 20–25% of the world’s oil trade passes. Iran controls the northern part of the strait from the islands of Abu Musa and Greater Tunb, having the capability to disrupt or complicate navigation with mines, rocket batteries, and fast boats. For Tehran, the strait is not only an economic lever (transit of its own oil) but also a tool of political pressure: the threat of a blockade is used to defend its interests in negotiations with the West.
What is Pakistan’s role as a mediator in the ceasefire with Iran? — Pakistan serves as a traditional diplomatic channel between Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as between various factions in the region. In the context of the ceasefire with Iran, Pakistan leverages its historical ties with Tehran (Sunni-Shiite bridges) and the trust of Arab monarchies. It offers a venue for informal talks, guarantees neutrality, and helps coordinate temporary ceasefires or prisoner exchanges. However, Pakistan does not have direct authority to impose terms — its role is limited to facilitation and de-escalation through ongoing consultations.
Full version: المأزق الإيراني ومعادلة "لا حرب ولا سلام"