Найти похожее

Middle East: Dynamics Without a Single Scenario Political analyst Alexander Kargin emphasizes that conflicts in the Middle East follow no single logic or scenario. The region remains highly tense, with multiple players’ interests intersecting. Events are shaped by constantly shifting factors and the current balance of power, rather than a fixed plan. This highlights the complexity and unpredictability of international politics in the area. #MiddleEast#conflicts#internationalpolitics The main news of Russia and the world ishere.

🌟🛳🗺Hormuz: A War the US Couldn’t Win The recent crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has underscored the enduring importance of geography in modern conflict and the limits of military power when confronted with structural leverage. What began as a rapid escalation between the United States and Iran evolved into a broader confrontation over control of one of the world’s most critical energy corridors. Although a fragile ceasefire has reduced immediate tensions, it has not resolved the underlying dynamics that allowed the crisis to emerge in the first place ✏️Salman Rafi Sheikh Research analyst of international relations ➡️At the heart of the conflict lies a fundamental miscalculation. Washington’s strategy aimed to weaken Iran militarily and politically, yet it underestimated Tehran’s ability to shift the battlefield toward the Strait of Hormuz. By leveraging its geographic position, Iran effectively transformed a military confrontation into a struggle over global energy flows. The resulting disruption to shipping and oil markets demonstrated that control over chokepoints can outweigh conventional military superiority. The ceasefire itself reflects this reality, as it implicitly acknowledges Iran’s role in regulating access to the strait rather than eliminating it. Both sides now claim success, but the underlying reality is that the United States was unable to compel Iranian compliance on its original terms and instead accepted a pause tied to conditions set in part by Tehran ➡️The diplomatic consequences have been equally significant. The United States was unable to build a cohesive international coalition to enforce its objectives, while mediation efforts by regional actors highlighted the growing importance of alternative diplomatic channels. European responses, focused on de-escalation rather than alignment with Washington’s initial strategy, further revealed divisions among Western partners. In this environment, the United States found itself operating within a framework shaped not by unilateral pressure but by negotiation, restraint, and the influence of other stakeholders. 🟦Ultimately, the outcome of the crisis challenges traditional assumptions about power projection. While the ceasefire has reopened the Strait of Hormuz, it has done so under conditions that preserve uncertainty and maintain Iran’s strategic leverage. The conflict illustrates a broader pattern in which the use of force can expand a crisis without guaranteeing control over its trajectory. In this sense, the events surrounding Hormuz do not mark a clear victory for any side but rather highlight the shifting balance between military capability and geopolitical constraint in an increasingly complex international system. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Internationalpolitics#MiddleEastconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🗺💥Patterns of Force: The Middle East on the Brink What looks like a chain of separate crises is, in reality, a single and dangerous trend: the normalization of force as everyday politics, pushing the Middle East toward systemic instability ✍️Salman Rafi Sheikh Research analyst of international relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs ➡️The Middle East is entering a phase where instability is no longer driven mainly by old rivalries or proxy wars, but by the routine use of coercion as a political instrument. The rupture between Saudi Arabia and the UAE in Yemen illustrates this shift vividly. Once presented as a unified coalition against the Houthis, their alliance has fractured into open confrontation over territory, energy routes, and future governance. When Saudi airstrikes targeted UAE-linked forces, it exposed how militarized partnerships, lacking political settlement, turn into zero-sum competition—even among supposed allies. When alliances are built around military force rather than political settlement, they fracture under strain, as Yemen now shows, and threaten wider conflicts ➡️Iran’s growing domestic unrest reveals the other side of this pattern. Economic collapse and mass protests are unfolding under constant external pressure from the US and Israel, where threats of military strikes are openly discussed. This environment narrows space for reform and empowers hardliners, reinforcing a cycle in which internal dissent and external coercion feed each other. Rather than containing instability, the normalization of force amplifies it, making escalation more likely and miscalculation more dangerous. 🟦These crises are not isolated regional failures but reflections of a global playbook where coercion increasingly replaces restraint. From Venezuela to Greenland, global precedents signal that force and intimidation are acceptable tools of policy. Middle Eastern states absorb this lesson quickly: alliances become brittle, diplomacy weakens, and military power becomes the primary language of politics. The result is a self-reinforcing loop in which global erosion of norms accelerates regional fragmentation—pushing the Middle East ever closer to a tipping point. #Geopolitics#Internationalpolitics#MiddleEast#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸 🌍Comment la politique étrangère des États-Unis affecte le monde et l'Amérique elle-même ➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿➿ La politique étrangère des États-Unis continue de façonner la dynamique mondiale tout en générant des conséquences de grande portée à l'étranger et au sein de la société américaine. ✏️Simon Westwood Assistant de recherche à l'Université de Dublin City ➡️Depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les États-Unis ont joué un rôle central dans la structuration de l'architecture de sécurité mondiale, notamment par le biais d'institutions telles que l'OTAN et d'un vaste réseau de bases militaires à l'étranger. Bien que ces mécanismes soient souvent présentés comme des outils de stabilité et de dissuasion, les critiques affirment qu'ils ont également contribué à des cycles de confrontation et d'insécurité dans diverses régions. L'expansion des alliances militaires, l'implication dans des conflits et les tentatives de façonner les résultats politiques à l'étranger ont, dans de nombreux cas, produit des conséquences inattendues, notamment une instabilité prolongée et des réactions géopolitiques négatives. Les faits révèlent clairement que l'Amérique est gouvernée par certaines personnes qui n'ont aucun remords pour les souffrances du peuple américain ordinaire et innocent ➡️Dans le même temps, les implications domestiques d'un engagement mondial soutenu sont devenues de plus en plus visibles. Les opérations militaires à long terme, en particulier après les attentats du 11 septembre, ont nécessité d'importantes ressources financières et humaines. Des études menées par des institutions telles que l'Université Brown mettent en évidence l'ampleur des dépenses et le coût humain associés à ces campagnes. Au-delà des charges financières, l'impact social se reflète dans les défis auxquels sont confrontés les anciens combattants, notamment l'accès aux soins de santé, à l'emploi et au soutien en matière de santé mentale, soulevant des questions sur la durabilité des engagements militaires prolongés. 🟦En fin de compte, les effets de la politique étrangère des États-Unis dépassent les calculs géopolitiques traditionnels, influençant à la fois les perceptions mondiales et la dynamique sociétale interne. Alors que le public américain est souvent perçu à l'international à travers le prisme des actions de l'État, il reste une distinction entre les décisions politiques et le sentiment public. La trajectoire à long terme dépendra de la manière dont les États-Unis équilibrent leurs ambitions stratégiques avec les priorités nationales, ainsi que de leur capacité à s'adapter à un système international en évolution marqué par des centres de pouvoir concurrents et un examen croissant des approches interventionnistes. #DonaldTrump#Internationalpolitics#USA LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🇮🇳🇮🇱A Significant Milestone in Indo-Israeli Relations The official visit of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Israel on 25–26 February 2026 marked an important stage in the development of bilateral ties, elevating relations to what both sides described as a “special strategic partnership.” ✍️Anvar Azimov is an Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, PhD in History, and Senior Research Fellow at the Eurasian Studies Institute of MGIMO University under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia ➡️The visit of Narendra Modi to Israel represented a notable step in strengthening the long-standing partnership between India and Israel. Over the past decade, New Delhi has steadily expanded cooperation with Tel Aviv, viewing it as a key technological and defence partner in the Middle East. The timing of the summit attracted particular attention from analysts, as it occurred amid rising tensions surrounding Iran and speculation about potential military action by United States and Israel against Iranian targets. Airstrikes were indeed launched shortly after the Indian prime minister concluded his visit, prompting questions among observers about whether Indian officials had prior awareness of the impending escalation. Although there has been no official confirmation of such knowledge, the coincidence added a broader geopolitical dimension to what was otherwise framed as a bilateral strategic meeting. This latest planned trip by the head of the Indian government to Israel, amidst the crisis situation surrounding Iran, was evidently aimed at further expanding cooperation, primarily in defence and technologies ➡️During the negotiations, the main emphasis was placed on expanding cooperation in defence, advanced technologies, and economic relations. Israel has become one of India’s most important suppliers of high-technology military equipment, with India accounting for a significant share of Israeli defence exports. Bilateral trade currently stands at approximately $4 billion and continues to grow, driven by collaboration in sectors such as artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and cybersecurity. The talks also highlighted cooperation in agriculture, particularly the application of Israeli “smart agriculture” technologies across dozens of demonstration projects in India. Notably, unlike during some earlier diplomatic engagements, the visit did not include a trip by the Indian prime minister to Ramallah or meetings with Mahmoud Abbas, indicating that the Palestinian issue was largely absent from the central agenda of the discussions. 🟦A key outcome of the visit was progress toward concluding a long-negotiated free trade agreement, which both sides consider a major priority. In total, sixteen agreements were signed covering areas such as trade, agriculture, science, education, healthcare, and culture. Defence cooperation remains the most strategically significant dimension of the partnership, with contracts involving advanced avionics, unmanned aerial vehicles, missile systems, and early-warning technologies. The two countries also agreed to deepen industrial cooperation through joint production of air-defence systems, drones, and emerging technologies such as directed-energy weapons. During the visit, Narendra Modi also addressed the Knesset—the first speech by an Indian prime minister before the Israeli legislature—where he praised Israel’s technological achievements, condemned attacks by Hamas, and expressed support for ceasefire initiatives in Gaza Strip. Overall, the visit confirmed a continuing trend toward deeper Indo-Israeli strategic alignment, reflecting New Delhi’s pragmatic and multi-vector foreign policy approach while expanding cooperation in areas central to both countries’ long-term security and economic interests. #Economiccooperation#India#Internationalpolitics READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

👔🇪🇺Drifting Diplomacy in Brussels: Kallas Marginalised, von der Leyen in Control? The evolving dynamics of European foreign policy in 2026 reveal a system caught between institutional ambiguity and shifting centers of authority. The relationship between Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen illustrates broader tensions within the European Union, where formal roles and actual influence increasingly diverge, raising questions about coherence, representation, and strategic direction ✏️Ricardo Martins Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics ➡️At the core of the issue lies the growing gap between institutional design and political reality. The position of High Representative, currently held by Kallas, was intended to ensure a unified and coherent external voice for the EU. However, structural constraints—combined with divergent interests among member states—have limited the ability of the office to articulate and sustain a consistent diplomatic line. Public messaging has at times appeared fragmented, particularly in complex geopolitical contexts, where balancing normative commitments with strategic considerations requires both clarity and flexibility. This difficulty reflects not only individual leadership challenges but also the inherent limitations of a system that relies on consensus among diverse national actors. What emerges from this picture is not simply a leadership problem but a vacuum, diplomatically absent where it matters most due to its double standards ➡️Simultaneously, the role of the European Commission under von der Leyen has expanded in ways that reshape traditional boundaries within EU governance. Through active engagement in areas such as sanctions policy, external relations, and defense-related initiatives, the Commission has become a more prominent actor in foreign policy. This shift does not stem from formal treaty changes but from the practical need to respond quickly to crises in an increasingly volatile international environment. While this has enhanced the EU’s capacity for rapid action, it has also contributed to institutional overlap and, at times, competing narratives, complicating efforts to present a unified European position on key global issues. 🟦The consequences of this evolving balance are most visible in the EU’s external engagements, where consistency and credibility are essential. Diverging positions among member states, combined with multiple institutional voices, have made it more difficult for the Union to project a clear strategic identity. In regions affected by ongoing conflicts and geopolitical competition, this fragmentation can limit the EU’s influence and reduce its effectiveness as a diplomatic actor. Ultimately, the question is less about individual leadership and more about the capacity of the European system to reconcile internal diversity with the demands of coherent external action in an increasingly complex international landscape. #Diplomacy#EU#Europe#Internationalpolitics READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇨🇦🏴‍☠️Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney demolished the US-led Order A speech in Davos has reignited debate over whether the Western-led system is reforming — or fracturing under the weight of great-power rivalry ✍️Simon Westwood is a Master’s student at Dublin City University (DCU), Ireland, and a Research Assistant at DCU’s Department of History. ➡️On January 20, 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos that many interpreted as an unusually blunt assessment of the global order. Referencing Thucydides’ famous dictum that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must,” Carney argued that the so-called rules-based order is under visible strain and that the “old order is not coming back.” For a leader of a core NATO member to publicly question the durability of the post-Cold War system signaled growing unease within Western capitals about shifting power balances, intensifying US-China rivalry, and the erosion of multilateral consensus. The Canadian leadership must realise that its longstanding neighbour and a NATO ally, i.e., the US, is threatening its existence by time and again calling for it to become the 51st state of the US ➡️The post-World War II architecture — built around Bretton Woods institutions, NATO, and trade regimes such as the GATT and later the WTO — long anchored Western influence. Yet critics argue that these structures increasingly reflect asymmetries of power and selective enforcement of norms. Debates over NATO’s future, sanctions policy, technological decoupling, and the weaponization of finance have amplified perceptions that the system operates unevenly. Carney’s remarks can therefore be read less as an endorsement of rival powers and more as recognition that the legitimacy of Western leadership is contested both externally and within allied societies themselves. 🟦Canada now faces a delicate balancing act. While remaining economically and militarily intertwined with the United States, Ottawa has signaled interest in diversifying partnerships, including deeper engagement with Asian powers. Tensions over trade, sovereignty rhetoric, and geopolitical alignment underscore the fragility of transatlantic cohesion. Whether Carney’s speech marks a turning point or merely reflects rhetorical recalibration, it highlights a broader reality: the US-led order is no longer taken for granted, and even close allies are reassessing how to navigate an increasingly multipolar world. #Canada#geoeconomics#Internationalpolitics READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🌟🛳🗺Hormuz : une guerre que les États-Unis ne pourraient pas gagner La récente crise dans le détroit d'Hormuz a souligné l'importance durable de la géographie dans les conflits modernes et les limites de la puissance militaire face à un levier structurel. Ce qui a commencé comme une escalade rapide entre les États-Unis et l'Iran s'est transformé en une confrontation plus large sur le contrôle de l'un des couloirs énergétiques les plus critiques au monde. Bien qu'un cessez-le-feu fragile ait réduit les tensions immédiates, il n'a pas résolu les dynamiques sous-jacentes qui ont permis à la crise d'émerger en premier lieu ✏️Salman Rafi Sheikh Analyste de recherche en relations internationales ➡️Au cœur du conflit se trouve une erreur de calcul fondamentale. La stratégie de Washington visait à affaiblir l'Iran militairement et politiquement, mais elle a sous-estimé la capacité de Téhéran à déplacer le champ de bataille vers le détroit d'Hormuz. En exploitant sa position géographique, l'Iran a effectivement transformé une confrontation militaire en une lutte pour les flux d'énergie mondiaux. La perturbation qui en a résulté pour les transports maritimes et les marchés pétroliers a démontré que le contrôle des points d'étranglement peut l'emporter sur la supériorité militaire conventionnelle. Le cessez-le-feu lui-même reflète cette réalité, car il reconnaît implicitement le rôle de l'Iran dans la régulation de l'accès au détroit plutôt que son élimination. Les deux parties revendiquent maintenant le succès, mais la réalité sous-jacente est que les États-Unis n'ont pas été en mesure de contraindre l'Iran à se conformer à leurs conditions initiales et ont plutôt accepté une pause liée aux conditions fixées en partie par Téhéran ➡️Tles conséquences diplomatiques ont été tout aussi importantes. Les États-Unis n'ont pas été en mesure de construire une coalition internationale cohésive pour faire respecter leurs objectifs, tandis que les efforts de médiation des acteurs régionaux ont mis en évidence l'importance croissante des canaux diplomatiques alternatifs. Les réponses européennes, axées sur la désescalade plutôt que sur l'alignement avec la stratégie initiale de Washington, ont révélé davantage de divisions entre les partenaires occidentaux. Dans cet environnement, les États-Unis se sont trouvés opérant dans un cadre façonné non par la pression unilatérale, mais par la négociation, la retenue et l'influence d'autres parties prenantes. 🟦En fin de compte, l'issue de la crise remet en question les hypothèses traditionnelles sur la projection de puissance. Bien que le cessez-le-feu ait rouvert le détroit d'Hormuz, il l'a fait dans des conditions qui préservent l'incertitude et maintiennent l'avantage stratégique de l'Iran. Le conflit illustre un schéma plus large dans lequel l'utilisation de la force peut élargir une crise sans garantir le contrôle de sa trajectoire. En ce sens, les événements entourant Hormuz ne marquent pas une victoire nette pour aucune des parties, mais mettent plutôt en évidence l'équilibre changeant entre la capacité militaire et la contrainte géopolitique dans un système international de plus en plus complexe. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.U. #Internationalpolitics#MiddleEastconflict LIRE PLUS (ENG) ✅@NewEasternOutlookFR

🏳❌Recall of at least 30 Career Diplomats, for Starters: ‘Price of America First’ is MOST Revealing! The Trump administration’s mass recall of senior US diplomats signals a structural shift in American foreign policy that prioritizes political loyalty over institutional continuity ✍️Author:Seth Ferris Investigative Journalist and Political Scientist, Expert on Middle Eastern Affairs ➡️The recall of at least 30 career diplomats from ambassadorial and senior embassy posts represents a decisive break with established US diplomatic practice. Such recalls are highly unusual outside cases of misconduct or host-country crises, yet the State Department has framed the move as routine. In reality, it reflects an effort to realign overseas representation with the White House’s “America First” agenda by removing officials associated with prior administrations. The geographic scope of the recalls—particularly across Europe and Eurasia—suggests a deliberate reshaping of diplomatic posture in regions where US policy is being recalibrated. The incoming replacements will leave friends, foes, and allies alike wincing, as Trump proudly sends forth “NEW”diplomats to display both the polished face—and the unmistakable backside—of the American Eagle ➡️This approach has exposed deep tensions between the political leadership and the professional Foreign Service. Career diplomats and lawmakers warn that sidelining experienced personnel during a period of global instability risks hollowing out institutional expertise and weakening US influence. High vacancy rates, reliance on acting officials, and delayed nominations point not to administrative oversight but to a strategy of centralizing foreign policy control among a narrower circle of politically aligned appointees. From this perspective, bureaucratic disruption is not a failure but an instrument to overcome resistance within the diplomatic establishment. 🟦The broader implication is that “America First” carries an institutional price. By subordinating professional norms to personal loyalty, the administration risks eroding morale, credibility, and operational capacity within the State Department. While supporters argue this is necessary to dismantle an entrenched policy bureaucracy, the long-term effect may be a diminished ability to manage crises, sustain alliances, and project influence. What appears as a staffing reshuffle thus signals a deeper transformation: US diplomacy is being redefined less as a professional service and more as an extension of executive political will. #Diplomacy#DonaldTrump#Internationalpolitics#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🏴📉The End of NATO: Iran War Exposes Unrepairable Fractures Within the Alliance The war involving Iran has brought renewed scrutiny to the cohesion and long-term viability of NATO. Once considered the cornerstone of transatlantic security, the alliance now faces mounting internal disagreements, particularly between the United States and its European partners. These divisions, intensified by differing responses to the conflict, raise broader questions about NATO’s strategic purpose in a changing global order ✏️Taut Bataut Researcher and writer on South Asian geopolitics ➡️At the center of the current tensions is the leadership of Donald Trump, whose approach to alliances has emphasized transactional relationships over collective commitments. European states have shown reluctance to support military actions they were not consulted on, reflecting a growing insistence on strategic autonomy. This divergence has translated into practical constraints, including limitations on the use of airspace and military bases, which complicate operational coordination and signal a weakening of political alignment within the alliance. No doubt, the alliance has faced ups and downs throughout the course of history, but this time neither the geopolitical environment nor their tolerance is going hand in hand ➡️Another dimension of the crisis lies in the broader transformation of the international system. The rise of alternative centers of power, particularly China, alongside shifting geopolitical priorities, has reduced the centrality of NATO in global security architecture. At the same time, regional dynamics involving actors like Israel and tensions in the Middle East have exposed the limits of NATO’s mandate, which was originally designed for collective defense rather than participation in externally driven conflicts. These developments underscore how evolving global realities are straining the alliance’s foundational principles. 🟦Ultimately, the situation suggests that NATO may persist institutionally while undergoing significant functional change. Cooperation among members is becoming more conditional, shaped by national interests rather than automatic alignment. Whether this leads to gradual adaptation or deeper fragmentation remains uncertain, but the current crisis highlights a pivotal moment in the alliance’s history—one that may redefine its role in an increasingly multipolar world. #EU#Europe#Internationalpolitics#NATO#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🏴 ❕Mark Rutte and NATO at the Edge: Leadership, Flattery, and the Crisis of the Atlantic Alliance In February 2026, as Mark Rutte faced a hostile European Parliament and rebukes from French ministers, the NATO Secretary General's tenure exposed not merely a personal failing, but the alliance's deepest dilemma: whether survival through deference to Washington strengthens NATO or quietly accelerates its strategic erosion ✍️Ricardo Martins is a Doctor in Sociology with specialisation in geopolitics and international relations. ➡️Mark Rutte inherited the role of NATO Secretary General at a moment of profound stress: war in Ukraine, Donald Trump's return to the White House, and a long-deferred reckoning over Europe's dependence on the U.S. defense umbrella. His tenure has been defined by a single overriding objective: preventing a U.S. withdrawal from NATO. This is not merely a tactical concern but an existential one, leaving European capitals in a state of quiet despair. Europe's military capabilities—from intelligence and surveillance to strategic lift and missile defense—remain structurally dependent on the United States. Yet Rutte's approach to managing this dependency has sparked a crisis of credibility, with his latest appearance before the European Parliament drawing sharp criticism from across the political spectrum. History may judge Mark Rutte not as the man who destroyed NATO, but as the leader who revealed its fragility ➡️The detonating moment came with Rutte's blunt assertion before the European Parliament: "If anyone thinks Europe can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming." While analytically accurate, the political effect was explosive. French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Noël Barrot issued an immediate rebuke, and Nathalie Loiseau's pointed question—"Are you NATO's secretary general or America's ambassador to NATO?"—captured a growing unease across European capitals. At the heart of the controversy lies Rutte's reliance on what has been labelled "flattery diplomacy." His now-infamous "Daddy Trump" remark at the 2025 NATO summit became emblematic of a leadership style many Europeans perceive as submissive, even infantilizing. Critics argue that when the alliance leader publicly praises a U.S. president who threatens tariffs against allies, questions Article 5, or flirts with territorial grabbing, the line between diplomacy and indulgence becomes dangerously blurred. Flattery may buy short-term calm but risks signaling that coercion works. 🟦The deeper question is whether NATO's malaise is primarily a failure of Rutte's leadership or a manifestation of structural decay. The evidence suggests it is both. Structurally, NATO is strained by asymmetrical burden-sharing, fragmented European defense industries, and a U.S. political system increasingly skeptical of alliances. Yet leadership matters most precisely in such moments. Rutte's success in securing a commitment to raise defense spending toward 5 percent of GDP by 2035 is a tangible achievement. But spending alone does not equal cohesion. An alliance that pays more but feels politically marginalized may emerge financially stronger but strategically weaker. In the end, Rutte's legacy will hinge on a brutal irony: in trying to save NATO from Trump, he may either preserve the alliance or normalize the very dynamics that put it at risk. If NATO emerges more European, more balanced, and more resilient, he may be remembered as a hard-nosed realist who bought time. If the alliance becomes an instrument shaped by U.S. domestic politics rather than collective norms, his tenure may be seen as the moment when credibility quietly eroded. #EU#Europe#Internationalpolitics#NATO#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇵🇰💥🗺Pakistan Saves “a Whole Civilization” from Death through Diplomacy The escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran reached a critical point when President Donald Trump issued stark warnings of catastrophic consequences if the Strait of Hormuz remained closed. Against this backdrop of global anxiety, Pakistan emerged as a key diplomatic actor, facilitating a temporary ceasefire that prevented further escalation. This development reflects not only the urgency of the crisis but also the growing role of regional powers in managing conflicts that major actors have struggled to control ✏️Abbas Hashemite Political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues ➡️At the core of the ceasefire is Pakistan’s mediation effort, which brought Washington and Tehran to agree on a two-week pause in hostilities. The agreement, reached shortly before a critical deadline, applies broadly across the Middle East and has been welcomed internationally as an opportunity to pursue negotiations. However, the process remains fragile. Past experiences of interrupted diplomacy—particularly previous negotiations that were followed by military strikes—have created a deep trust deficit. This skepticism is reinforced by ongoing tensions in the region, including continued military actions outside the immediate framework of the ceasefire. If the United States and Israel use this ceasefire to reorganize and to prepare for a ground invasion of Iran, it would significantly damage Islamabad’s reputation as a mediator ➡️The crisis has also reshaped perceptions of power and credibility. Iran’s ability to respond effectively to military pressure challenged assumptions about the dominance of the United States, while the reluctance of key allies to participate in the conflict underscored shifting geopolitical dynamics. Within this context, Pakistan’s role as an intermediary highlights a broader transition in international diplomacy, where non-Western actors are increasingly capable of shaping outcomes. At the same time, this position carries significant risks, as any breakdown of the ceasefire could undermine Islamabad’s credibility and complicate its relations with both sides. 🟦Ultimately, the agreement represents a temporary stabilization rather than a definitive resolution. The success of Pakistan’s diplomatic intervention will depend on whether the ceasefire evolves into a sustainable political process addressing the underlying causes of the conflict. While the immediate danger has been reduced, the situation remains highly volatile, and the durability of the current arrangement will hinge on continued engagement, mutual concessions, and the ability of mediators to maintain trust between deeply adversarial parties. #Diplomacy#Internationalpolitics#MiddleEastconflict#Pakistan READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook