With the official signing of a memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran to suspend hostilities across all fronts taking place in France on Wednesday, all eyes are on whether this deal can hold.
The agreement does not address all the fundamental issues at play, but rather creates a framework for future negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme, which could yet derail the diplomatic process.
Furthermore, it is an open question as to whether the deal can withstand Israeli efforts to torpedo the prospects for peace by continuing its war of aggression in Lebanon.
Despite these challenges, the signing is a major step in the right direction for a negotiated settlement to end the most consequential global crisis of the 21st century.
Behind the headlines, this week’s agreement is the product of months of patient and cumulative diplomatic efforts by multiple states and organisations.
CLICK FOLLOW: TO FOLLOW US
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other eSPORTY
Pakistan takes much credit for its consistent and clear leadership of the multi-party mediation, sustaining a process involving two unpredictable and powerful conflict parties, in the face of enormous global public pressure. It also coalesced a diplomatic front including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Notably, Pakistan appears to have taken a leaf out of Qatar’s book, utilising its unique set of relationships and communication channels to act as an effective go-between.
Pragmatic approach
Alongside Pakistan, Qatar played a key role in brokering the Iran-US deal. Over the past week, Qatari delegations twice touched down in Tehran for talks with Iranian officials – including 17 hours of intense negotiations throughout Sunday that culminated in the agreement.
Further talks are scheduled to take place in Doha throughout this week. While Qatar’s profile as a mediator in global conflicts has risen dramatically in recent years, with the Gulf nation proving adept at utilising its strategic reach and a pragmatic approach to peacemaking, its involvement in the latest deal may come as a surprise to some observers.
For a small state, diplomacy is not the strategy of the helpless; it is the rational choice of an actor that knows precisely what it can and cannot change
In the run-up to the war, Oman and Qatar jointly brokered a series of negotiations between US and Iranian delegations. Oman served as facilitator, while Qatar played the role of go-between, passing messages between the two sides.
UK national security adviser Jonathan Powell judged that a deal was within reach at that stage. However, these efforts dramatically broke down when the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran on 28 February.
The outbreak of hostilities saw the Gulf states dragged onto the frontlines of a war of the US and Israel’s choosing. Qatar suffered a particularly damaging blow with the Iranian targeting of energy facilities, which destroyed 17 percent of the country’s liquefied natural gas export capacity for up to five years.
Under daily Iranian attacks, the mediation infrastructure that Qatar and Oman had patiently built over the course of several years came under direct attack. Some observers questioned the validity and rationality of their diplomatic stance, given the grave threat that the widening all-out regional war posed to the Gulf countries.
Rational choice
This context makes Qatar’s increasingly prominent role in US-Iran negotiations all the more surprising. On 24 March, Qatar officially distanced itself from the ongoing mediation efforts, emphasising instead the protection of the country in the face of Iranian attacks.
As the ceasefire that was signed on 8 April began to fray in recent weeks, Qatar returned to mediate US-Iran talks, with an Iranian delegation visiting Doha in late May. Qatar thus resumed its longstanding role of conducting shuttle diplomacy, with Pakistan leading the overall facilitation of the negotiation process.
Iranians greet deal to end war with relief, suspicion and uncertainty
Read More »
That Qatar returned to the table at all, having been bombed for its troubles and having publicly stepped back only weeks earlier, speaks to something its critics consistently misread.
Qatari mediation resisted pressure from those who wanted to see it sever its relations with Iran and pursue military options. Yet after more than a month of fighting, the US and Israel failed to deal any decisive damage to the Iranian state. It is wholly unrealistic to expect that a further military buildup by small Gulf states could have tilted the balance on the battlefield.
Rather, mediation and diplomacy have consistently been Qatar’s strongest cards available. The cost of diplomatic action is minuscule compared with the vast expenditure, and human toll, of war.
Some wanted Qatar to go further: to cut its channel to Tehran and push for international action to protect the sanctity of mediation. But a mediator that publicly aligns against one party ceases to be a mediator. Had Qatar severed its lines to Iran, it would have surrendered the very asset – open communication with both sides – that enabled it to broker an agreement weeks later.
For a small state, diplomacy is not the strategy of the helpless; it is the rational choice of an actor that knows precisely what it can and cannot change.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
