Systemic breakdown: US-Iran ceasefire exposes decades of militarised deterrence and proxy warfare in West Asia

Indigenous and local peacebuilding traditions in West Asia, such as the concept of 'sulh' (reconciliation) in Arab cultures or 'peace through justice' in Persian thought, prioritise restorative rather than punitive approaches to conflict. These traditions are systematically excluded from Western policy frameworks, which favour militarised deterrence over community-led mediation. The absence of indigenous voices in ceasefire negotiations reflects a broader erasure of non-Western epistemologies in geopolitics.

The current ceasefire must be contextualised within a century of Western intervention in West Asia, from the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement to the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran and the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Each of these events reshaped regional power dynamics, creating the conditions for today’s proxy wars and sanctions regimes. The US-Iran relationship is also shaped by the 1979 revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis, which became a foundational myth for US foreign policy in the region.

Comparative analysis reveals that other regions have developed alternative conflict-resolution mechanisms, such as South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission or Colombia’s peace accords with FARC, which prioritise truth and reparations over military solutions. West Asian scholars often cite these models as evidence that sustainable peace requires addressing historical grievances, not just tactical truces. However, these examples are rarely referenced in Western media coverage of US-Iran tensions.

Research in conflict studies shows that sanctions and military interventions often exacerbate instability rather than resolve it, as seen in the case of Iraq post-1990 or Libya post-2011. The economic and social costs of sanctions on Iran—including a 50% decline in GDP since 2018—have been well-documented by economists like Djavad Salehi-Isfahani. Meanwhile, studies on deterrence theory (e.g., work by Robert Jervis) highlight how arms races and mutual distrust can lead to unintended escalations.

Artistic and spiritual traditions in West Asia often depict conflict as a symptom of deeper spiritual or moral imbalances, as seen in Persian poetry (e.g., Rumi’s emphasis on unity) or Sufi practices of nonviolent resistance. Iranian cinema, for example, frequently critiques militarism through allegory, as in Abbas Kiarostami’s 'Taste of Cherry.' These perspectives are marginalised in secular policy discourse, which treats conflict as a purely rational, strategic problem.

Scenario modelling suggests that without structural changes—such as lifting sanctions, ending arms sales to the region, and investing in Track II diplomacy—the current ceasefire will likely collapse into renewed hostilities within 12-18 months. Alternative futures include a regional security framework (similar to ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation) or a phased de-escalation tied to economic cooperation. The risk of accidental escalation remains high due to the presence of proxy forces and miscalculation in military postures.

Marginalised voices—including Iranian feminists, Arab human rights activists, and Kurdish communities—are systematically excluded from ceasefire negotiations, despite bearing the brunt of the conflict’s consequences. Iranian women’s rights groups, for example, have long advocated for peace as a prerequisite for gender justice, while Arab civil society organisations in the Gulf have called for an end to arms races. These perspectives are often dismissed as 'idealistic' in favour of 'realist' geopolitical calculations.