中文
By Nikola Mikovic
Lead: With U.S. military pressure on Iran showing the limits of coercive diplomacy, debate is growing over whether a durable Middle East peace requires a fundamentally different security framework.
"There is no instance of a nation benefiting from prolonged warfare," the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu wrote in "The Art of War" almost 2,500 years ago (夫兵久而国利者,未之有也). The United States, under Donald Trump, seems to be learning this the hard way, as it struggles to find an exit strategy for its Iran adventure.
The early days of the U.S. and Israeli joint attacks on the Islamic Republic confirmed the maxim, often attributed to Gabriel Garcia Marquez, that starting a war is easy but ending one is far harder. Despite the killing of the Iranian political leadership, including Ali Khamenei, it became clear that Washington's blitzkrieg-style regime change operation had failed. Fully aware of this, Trump began to pressure Tehran to find a resolution to the conflict he had initiated.
The first round of talks between the United States and Iran, held April 11-12 in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, did not produce a durable breakthrough in the Middle East. Iran had previously accepted Trump's two-week ceasefire proposal. On April 16, Israel also agreed to a 10-day Trump-proposed truce in Lebanon. Reports also suggest that Washington and Tehran are now close to reaching a final deal, with the two sides expected to hold another round of talks in Islamabad soon.
The problem, however, is that from the Iranian perspective, Donald Trump cannot be trusted. Iranian leaders have repeatedly stressed that they would not engage in talks with Washington, citing a "very bad experience." Indeed, there are no guarantees that the U.S. and Israel will not use the ongoing ceasefire to rearm, consolidate their positions, and launch another wave of missile and air attacks on the Islamic Republic. Still, despite such fears, Tehran eventually agreed to negotiate with Washington.
However, under the current conditions, what Trump aims to achieve does not appear to be lasting peace, but rather an arrangement that resembles the Minsk agreements signed between Russia and Ukraine in 2014 and 2015. The deals, reached in the Belarusian capital, failed to end hostilities in eastern Ukraine. Instead, they served as a smokescreen, allowing both sides to engage in low-intensity positional warfare while preparing for the major conflict that broke out on Feb. 24, 2022.
Washington's approach to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East could easily lead to the same outcome: a temporary ceasefire that could even last for years, followed by a major war. To avoid such a trajectory, a fundamentally different policy is needed. Could China offer an alternative framework?
On April 21, 2022, during the annual Boao Forum, Chinese President Xi Jinping proposed the Global Security Initiative (GSI), a vision for a more inclusive and cooperative model of global security centered on multilateralism, respect for sovereignty, and dialogue over confrontation. It also promotes principles such as partnerships over alliances and win-win outcomes over zero-sum approaches.
At the same time, the GSI upholds the concept of indivisible security, calls for a balanced and sustainable security architecture, and rejects the idea of one country's security being built at the expense of others' security. It is based on six key commitments, including cooperative security, respect for sovereignty, adherence to the U.N. Charter, attention to all countries' security concerns, peaceful dispute resolution through dialogue, and a comprehensive approach to both traditional and non-traditional security issues. In other words, in contrast to approaches driven by pressure, the GSI promotes a different understanding of security.
Over the past four years, the GSI has been supported by more than 130 countries and regional and international organizations. Pakistan, a host of the U.S.-Iran peace talks and one of China's major regional partners, has repeatedly backed the GSI. It is, therefore, no surprise that Islamabad and Beijing, on March 31, jointly issued a five-point plan to secure peace in the Middle East — a document broadly in line with the GSI.
It reflects the GSI's core principles, including dialogue over confrontation, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, protection of civilians, security of maritime routes, adherence to the U.N.-centered international system, common and cooperative security, and opposition to escalation and unilateral military action.
Most recently, on April 14, in the run-up to the GSI's fourth anniversary, Xi issued a four-point proposal on the settlement of the Middle East conflict. The initiative calls for adherence to peaceful coexistence and international law, the establishment of a common and cooperative regional security framework, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, and closer coordination between development and security to promote long-term stability in the Middle East.
This proposal also seems closely aligned with the GSI, reflecting the GSI's core pillars almost point by point. China, therefore, remains steadfast in offering models that could be acceptable to all parties involved in the conflict in the Middle East. Although these ideas are anything but easy to implement, the growing debate on alternative security models shows a broader search for new ways to manage international relations.
But the U.S., at least for now, remains committed to its maximalist demands. Following the last unsuccessful talks in Islamabad, Washington has stepped up pressure, including the announcement of a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Previously, on April 10, Trump threatened new strikes on Iran if talks in Islamabad collapsed. Still, in his unpredictable manner, he later suggested that the war "may soon be over."
One thing is certain: the U.S., at this point, seeks to freeze the conflict. Whether Washington will use the ongoing ceasefire to prepare for another, bloodier war remains to be seen. But to achieve sustainable peace in the Middle East, a shift toward the spirit of the key principles of the GSI is needed. Continued reliance on military pressure and short-term tactical pauses has repeatedly failed to produce lasting stability, instead reinforcing cycles of escalation and mistrust across the region.
As Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasized, the world today is confronted with many tough problems, and major countries should act in a manner befitting their status, demonstrating broad-mindedness and a strong sense of responsibility. It is high time the U.S. learned it and acted accordingly in the case of its Iran policy.
Nikola Mikovic is a Serbia-based freelance journalist and political analyst.
