A second round of negotiations, which is reportedly due to take place in a few days, is also doomed to failure. Bilateral negotiations will not bring peace. However, a comprehensive regional framework agreement could certainly do this.
Any viable agreement must achieve two goals simultaneously. It must lay the foundation for lasting peace while allowing each side to present the result as a success at home. This delicate balance is further complicated by the indirect but decisive influence of external actors, most notably Israel.
Crucially, the current crisis was not triggered by a single conflict, but by the convergence of four fault lines: the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program, the lack of a regional security architecture that addresses missiles and proxy wars, and the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Progress on any single front is unlikely without parallel developments on the others.
The Strait of Hormuz has become the main scene of the crisis. Although it has since reopened, Iran’s temporary closure of the strait – and the subsequent US naval blockade of Iranian ports – highlighted both its vulnerability and the risk of rapid escalation. A more permanent solution would be to temporarily place the strait under the management of a coalition of trusted intermediaries such as Türkiye, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia. Under clearly defined conditions, they could send a joint maritime mission to restore safe passage.
Conditions for ceasefire
However, such an arrangement would require the US to commit to an immediate end to military operations against Iran, including those conducted in coordination with Israel. In return, Iran would have to ensure maritime security and refrain from attacks on its neighbors. The Gulf states themselves, drawn into the war against their will, would have strong incentives to support such a mechanism.
To ensure legitimacy, the initiative must be approved by the United Nations Security Council, with formal support from its five permanent members with veto power. Beyond immediate stabilization, this framework could also pave the way for longer-term regulation of transit through the Strait, including mechanisms to compensate for war-related damage through maritime revenues.
Iran should reaffirm its longstanding commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons, and the United States should formally recognize the Islamic Republic’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy
While Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain a major sticking point, there is still a path to de-escalation provided both sides adopt a reciprocal approach. Iran should reaffirm its longstanding commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons, and the United States should formally recognize the Islamic Republic’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Such mutual recognition would enable both sides to claim diplomatic success.
The 2010 Tehran agreement – negotiated by Turkey and Brazil in collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency – offers a useful model. As Turkey’s foreign minister at the time, I helped broker the deal that required Iran to dump its enriched uranium in Turkey in exchange for nuclear fuel for civilian use. An updated version of this agreement, possibly brokered again by Turkey or Pakistan, could provide a promising basis for renewed negotiations.
Once common ground is established, the focus can shift to creating a region free of nuclear weapons, including those possessed by Israel, thereby addressing the region’s broader security concerns. While calls for Iran to give up its ballistic missile capabilities following sustained US and Israeli attacks are unrealistic, progress is still possible. The key challenge lies in managing proxy conflicts and the lack of a common security framework.
This problem cannot be solved through bilateral negotiations between the United States and Iran alone. Creating a multi-layered regional security architecture requires first practical steps to build trust between Iran and the Gulf states, with Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia acting as mediators. A joint commission could defuse immediate tensions while laying the groundwork for a more permanent agreement.
As in Cold War Europe, a framework based on transparency, mutual restraint and verification mechanisms could significantly reduce the risk of escalation
The second level is a regional security forum that, in addition to the Gulf states and Iran, also brings together Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Yemen. Over time, this process could evolve into a structured regional dialogue leading to a Middle Eastern equivalent of the 1975 Helsinki Accords.
As in Cold War Europe, a framework based on transparency, mutual restraint and verification mechanisms could significantly reduce the risk of escalation. The 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe demonstrated that even deeply divided regions can agree on limits on military capabilities if mutual vulnerabilities are recognized.
But any sustainable regional order must address the question of Palestine, as the denial of Palestinian self-determination remains a fundamental factor in instability in the Middle East. Israel’s six-decade occupation of the West Bank – despite repeated UN resolutions – and its ongoing military operations in Gaza have precluded a stable security environment. Efforts to circumvent the conflict, such as the Abraham Accords, have only fueled resentment.
A new approach is urgently needed. Israel should be offered integration into a regional security architecture, including full diplomatic normalization and formal guarantees, in return for recognition of Palestinian statehood and an end to its military operations in Lebanon.
Trump faces a momentous decision
US President Donald Trump, who began his second term in office hoping to win the Nobel Peace Prize, now faces a momentous decision. He can continue a war that lacks strategic clarity and threatens to plunge the region – and the world – into deeper chaos, or he can seize the opportunity to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough, starting with a ceasefire and culminating in a lasting peace. At the same time, international decision-makers should pursue a coordinated diplomatic initiative to steer policy toward de-escalation.
The revival of the Alliance of Civilizations – launched by Turkey and Spain in 2005 and later institutionalized within the UN – could provide an ideal platform for such efforts. A summit of heads of state and government convened under their auspices would signal a shared commitment to moving beyond crisis management to a cooperative regional order. Without a comprehensive security approach, the current cycle of escalation will continue and worsen.
* Ahmet Davutoğlu is a former Prime Minister (2014-2016) and Foreign Minister (2009-2014) of Türkiye.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2026.www.project-syndicate.org
