Regional powers Egypt and Pakistan seek multilateral framework to de-escalate US-Iran tensions amid geopolitical fragmentation

Indigenous and traditional peace frameworks in Pakistan and Egypt—such as the Pashtun *‘jirga’* system or the Al-Azhar University’s mediation networks—offer decentralized, community-rooted alternatives to state-led diplomacy. These systems prioritize restorative justice and economic interdependence, contrasting with the punitive sanctions regimes that have deepened regional divisions. However, their integration into formal peace processes remains marginalized in favor of elite-driven negotiations. The exclusion of these systems reflects a broader erasure of non-Western conflict-resolution paradigms in global governance.

The US-Iran conflict is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a century-long pattern of Western intervention in the Middle East, from the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement to the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Mossadegh. The 1979 Iranian Revolution and subsequent hostage crisis institutionalized a cycle of retaliation, while the 2003 Iraq War further destabilized the region by empowering Iran-backed militias. The JCPOA (2015) briefly broke this cycle, but its collapse under Trump revealed the fragility of diplomatic solutions in a system dominated by sanctions and military posturing. These historical precedents underscore the need for structural reforms, not just temporary truces.

Cross-cultural comparisons reveal that non-Western peace frameworks often emphasize relational repair over legalistic agreements. In Pakistan, the *‘jirga’* system resolves disputes through consensus and economic compensation, while in Egypt, Sufi orders like the Bektashi have historically mediated conflicts through spiritual and economic networks. Iran’s *‘ta’adi’* principle challenges the US’s zero-sum approach by framing peace as a balance of rights. These traditions highlight the limitations of Western diplomatic models, which prioritize state sovereignty and sanctions over community-level reconciliation and economic interdependence.

Academic research on sanctions regimes (e.g., Hufbauer et al., 2007) demonstrates that economic coercion rarely achieves policy goals and instead fuels state resilience and civilian suffering. Studies on conflict mediation (e.g., Bercovitch & Gartner, 2006) show that durable peace agreements require inclusive, multi-track diplomacy involving civil society, not just elite negotiations. Meanwhile, game theory models of US-Iran interactions (e.g., Brams & Togman, 1998) reveal that tit-for-tat strategies lead to escalation, while cooperative frameworks (e.g., tit-for-two-tats) can de-escalate tensions. These insights challenge the assumption that sanctions and military posturing are effective tools for peace.

Artistic and spiritual traditions in the region offer symbolic and practical tools for reimagining peace. Persian poetry, such as Rumi’s works, frames conflict as a transformative journey, while Sufi music and dance (e.g., Qawwali) create spaces for emotional reconciliation. In Pakistan, the poetry of Allama Iqbal and the folk traditions of Sindh and Balochistan articulate visions of unity that transcend sectarian divides. These cultural expressions highlight the role of art in fostering empathy and challenging dominant narratives of enmity. However, their integration into formal peace processes remains limited.

Scenario modeling suggests that without structural reforms, the US-Iran conflict will continue to escalate through proxy wars in Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon, with Pakistan and Egypt increasingly drawn into regional blocs. A cooperative scenario would involve reviving the JCPOA with expanded regional guarantees, including economic integration (e.g., a Gulf-South Asia energy corridor) and a regional security architecture modeled on ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation. A fragmented scenario could see the rise of new non-state actors, further eroding state sovereignty and deepening humanitarian crises. The key variable is whether regional actors can assert agency independent of US and Iranian pressures.

Marginalized communities—Baloch in Iran and Pakistan, Kurds in Syria and Iraq, Ahwazi Arabs in Iran, and Baha’is in both countries—are disproportionately affected by US-Iran proxy conflicts but are excluded from peace negotiations. Their perspectives highlight the need for inclusive frameworks that address economic marginalization, cultural erasure, and political repression. Grassroots peacebuilders, such as the Baloch Women’s Alliance or the Ahwaz Human Rights Organization, have proposed alternative solutions, such as demilitarized zones and economic development programs, but these are ignored in elite-driven diplomacy. Their exclusion reflects a broader pattern of silencing non-state actors in global governance.