US-Iran ceasefire exposes mutual propaganda cycles: systemic failure of militarised diplomacy and unchecked arms races

Indigenous and minority communities in the region—Kurds, Baloch, Arabs, and Azeris—bear the brunt of militarisation, displacement, and cultural erasure, yet their knowledge of coexistence and resistance is excluded from conflict narratives. Their oral histories document cycles of violence tied to colonial borders and resource extraction, offering alternative frameworks for peace that centre land restitution and self-determination. The erasure of these voices reflects a broader pattern where indigenous epistemologies are dismissed as 'unscientific' in favour of state-centric militarised solutions.

The current ceasefire echoes historical patterns of US-Iranian confrontation, from the 1953 coup against Mossadegh to the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, where external powers exploited regional divisions for strategic gain. Each cycle of escalation is followed by a propaganda-driven 'victory' narrative that obscures the underlying economic and geopolitical interests driving the conflict. The 2015 nuclear deal’s collapse and subsequent sanctions demonstrated how diplomatic failures are weaponised to justify further militarisation, a trend repeating in 2026.

In Persian culture, *taarof* (ritual politeness) and indirect communication often mask real intentions, while in Western diplomacy, direct confrontation is valorised—yet both systems fail to address structural violence. Arab traditions of *wasta* (mediation) and Islamic concepts of *adl* (justice) offer frameworks for de-escalation that are ignored in favour of military posturing. The framing of 'victory' as a zero-sum game is a Western construct; many non-Western societies prioritise honour, dignity, and collective survival over individualised triumphs.

Conflict escalation models (e.g., Richardson’s arms race theory) predict that mutual victory claims reinforce feedback loops of distrust and further militarisation, as seen in the 2026 ceasefire’s fragility. Behavioural economics shows that nationalist rhetoric triggers in-group/out-group biases, reducing the likelihood of compromise. The lack of empirical data on civilian casualties or economic costs in mainstream coverage obscures the true 'costs' of these propaganda cycles, which are measurable in displacement, trauma, and lost development opportunities.

Persian miniature art and poetry often depict conflict as a temporary storm, with themes of resilience and eventual harmony, contrasting with Western epic narratives of eternal struggle. Sufi traditions frame victory as a spiritual triumph over ego, a perspective that challenges the materialism of state propaganda. Indigenous Zoroastrian and Mandaean traditions in the region view peace as a sacred duty, yet these voices are absent from secularised conflict analysis.

Scenario modelling suggests that continued militarised diplomacy will lead to either a prolonged cold war in the Gulf or a catastrophic miscalculation, with regional allies (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Israel) drawn into direct conflict. Alternative futures include regional security pacts mediated by Oman or Qatar, or grassroots peace initiatives leveraging shared cultural heritage. The arms industry’s lobbying power (e.g., Lockheed Martin, Iran’s Defence Industries Organization) ensures that de-escalation remains unlikely without external pressure on these economic drivers.

Civil society groups, including women’s networks in Iran and Kurdish human rights organisations, have proposed demilitarisation and dialogue, but their proposals are sidelined by state-aligned media. Journalists and activists documenting civilian casualties face imprisonment or assassination, erasing critical perspectives from the narrative. Refugees and internally displaced persons, who experience the conflict’s daily realities, are treated as passive victims rather than agents of peacebuilding.