The recently signed ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran has generated mixed reactions in the international community. While Washington claimed it as a major diplomatic success, Tehran’s interpretation was different. Because of this inconsistent narrative, many feel that the treaty is likely to be void. However, international political analysts say that such conflicting positions at the negotiating table are not unusual, rather it shows that both sides are trying to present the situation in their favor to the people of their respective countries.
The main crisis has arisen over matters outside the contract. According to expert Monica Duffy Toft, this is no ordinary bilateral negotiation but a complex ‘five-level game’. While Washington has to deal with Tehran on the one hand, it also has to think about the interests of Israel, Congress, Arab allies and European countries on the other. Similarly, Tehran has to keep in mind its Supreme Leader, Revolutionary Guards and the people under sanctions. As a result, each party is making promises that are not fully consistent with the basic structure of the contract.
Historical context shows that peace agreements survive only when the parties can provide explanations acceptable to their respective populations. But a major weakness remains in the current US-Iran deal. While this agreement is very generous in providing both parties with a lot of financial benefits and concessions, it is almost silent on what kind of punitive measures will be taken for breaking the rules. This has been the biggest obstacle to the long-term success of the agreement.
Studies have shown that peace agreements signed after the end of a major war, unless their effective implementation is ensured, are at risk of collapsing more quickly than conflicts such as civil wars. The current deal promises Iran oil sales concessions, embargoed fund waivers and huge sums for reconstruction. In return, Tehran agreed to take steps such as opening the Strait of Hormuz and reducing uranium enrichment. But if these conditions are violated, there is no effective penalty provision.
Another major risk area of this agreement is the parties outside its scope. Regional militia groups backed by Israel, Hezbollah or Iran are not part of the deal. Since they have not signed any terms of the contract, they are under no obligation. As a result, they can disrupt the peace process whenever they want, because they don’t have to pay any extra to do so. It is essentially an incomplete security framework.
Absent here is the long-term institutional commitment necessary to maintain peace. The durability of the 1979 peace agreement between Egypt and Israel was based on a specific monitoring system and the presence of international forces. But in the case of Iran and the United States, no such specific surveillance enforcement mechanism has yet been developed. The most sensitive issue of ‘Uranium Enrichment’ has been left for the future without any final decision being reached.
It cannot be sworn that the next conflict will not come. A look at history shows that dramatic arguments or tensions are common at the beginning of peace processes. But the bigger crisis is what happens when the rewards run out or the incentives dry up. The agreement will last as long as all parties receive additional benefits. But once these benefits run out, if there is no fear of punitive measures behind the deal, it is likely to collapse.
It is not only the signatories who have the primary responsibility to uphold this agreement. More important is the creation of a system in which any move, such as a return to violence, automatically carries a heavy political and economic price. Unless third parties who have not signed the treaty are also included in this punishment, the current ceasefire will only be regarded as a temporary pause.
Source: Asia Times
BD daily/NH
