All parties should commit to path of peace: China Daily editorial

The proposed peace agreement between the United States and Iran, unveiled after months of conflict and on-and-off negotiations, might be hijacked by a third party even before its scheduled inking in Geneva on Friday.

Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Monday rejected the US-Iran deal that is aimed at ending hostilities across the Middle East, including in Lebanon, declaring that Israel is not obligated to abide by it. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz also said that Israel won't withdraw from land seized in Lebanon, potentially challenging the interim deal.

Only months ago, the US and Israel jointly "justified" military strikes against Iran as "necessary" to neutralize a looming "security threat". Today, Tel Aviv is reminding the world which country is the real obstruction to peace.

The reported deal is hardly a perfect agreement. Neither side achieved all its objectives. Yet that is precisely why it resembles diplomacy rather than the surrender of one of the parties.

The reality is that wars are costly. And long wars are politically fatal. The conflict has sent energy markets into turmoil. The US, despite its status as a major energy producer, is not immune to the price spike. Higher energy costs threatened inflation just as the US administration was attempting to reassure voters about living costs and economic stability.

Washington's experience from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan repeatedly demonstrates that military superiority does not guarantee strategic success. Yet the US has a peculiar tendency to forget this lesson whenever a new conflict begins, seemingly in the belief that this time it will be different.

The beneficiaries are military contractors, geopolitical speculators and some politicians associated with them. The wealthy and powerful make the decisions; the burden falls elsewhere.

This reality helps explain why the US president is now promoting an agreement under tremendous domestic pressure. Tehran faces pressures of its own too. Hardliners reportedly remain suspicious of engagement with Washington.

While the world's attention is on Israel trying to block the deal by continuing to attack Lebanon, which Iran will not tolerate, it should not be forgotten that the Palestinian question remains the core issue of the Middle East crisis.

A durable Middle Eastern peace cannot be built while the Palestinian question remains indefinitely suspended. Gaza's devastation and the absence of a credible political pathway continue to fuel instability throughout the region. Any regional security architecture that ignores Palestinian statehood risks treating symptoms while neglecting causes.

Even if the US-Iran agreement is signed, implementation will be vulnerable. The accord reportedly contains phased commitments and verification periods. Any disruption during these stages could unravel the process, as was the case with the Gaza ceasefire deal endorsed by the US.

This is where concerns about Israeli actions become particularly relevant. Israel possesses both the capability and, in some quarters, the incentive to challenge arrangements it views as unfavorable. A renewed escalation on the Lebanese front, for example, could kill the agreement in the cradle.

Against this backdrop, the willingness of the United Kingdom, France and Germany to consider lifting sanctions on Iran deserves recognition. Europe appears to understand that economic integration offers a more sustainable path than perpetual confrontation.

As Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said in reply to questions on the proposed US-Iran deal at a news conference in Beijing on Monday, China welcomes the agreement on the content of a first-phase memorandum of understanding, and appreciates the mediation efforts made by Pakistan.

China hopes that the US and Iran will sign the memorandum as scheduled, and that all relevant parties will remain committed to the path of peace, resolving outstanding issues through dialogue and negotiation, Lin added.

Beijing's four-point proposal to promote peace and stability in the Middle East — emphasizing peaceful coexistence, respect for sovereignty, adherence to international law and coordination between development and security — is a practical necessity given the precarious circumstances.

The proposed US-Iran deal emerged because the two parties eventually confronted the same reality: the costs of continued conflict exceed the benefits. Whether peace survives may now depend on whether every actor reaches the same conclusion.