Hostilities risk sprawling out-of-control: China Daily editorial

Barely weeks after the United States and Iran signed the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, an interim deal intended to end hostilities and create a framework for a broader settlement, the agreement is in jeopardy.

The immediate trigger appears to have been disputes over the interpretation of the MoU's provisions governing navigation through the Strait of Hormuz. Yet the renewed confrontation is not simply another chapter in the rivalry between Washington and Tehran. It has evolved into a three-party strategic contest in which Tel Aviv's calculations also influence the pace and direction of events.

Israel has never concealed its willingness to prevent any US-Iran accommodation. From its perspective, even a temporary understanding risks reducing pressure on Tehran while leaving "unresolved concerns" over Iran's regional influence and nuclear issue. Recent reports suggest that Tel Aviv has been "coordinating" with Washington while simultaneously warning Tehran against retaliation. Israel's strategic intentions differ from those of parties seeking to preserve regional stability.

This matters because the MoU was always less a peace agreement than a ceasefire held together by political convenience. It rested upon ambiguous language, diverging strategic objectives and fragile domestic calculations on both sides. Such pacts survive only when all parties concerned possess strong incentives to preserve them. That condition is disappearing.

Washington's own calculations illustrate why. The US administration continues to face conflicting pressures. Military restraint satisfies voters weary of endless Middle Eastern crises. Yet any perceived concession toward Iran invites fierce criticism from domestic hawks. Rising oil prices threaten inflation, consumer confidence and electoral prospects, while renewed military action risks producing precisely the energy shock that the earlier agreement sought to prevent. Unsurprisingly, Washington has simultaneously resumed military operations while signaling its willingness to return to negotiations — an apparent contradiction that reflects political necessity rather than strategic coherence.

Military force has repeatedly demonstrated its limitations. Months of strikes have neither fundamentally altered Iran's strategic judgments nor produced a durable diplomatic breakthrough. Instead, every exchange of missiles further erodes trust while increasing the probability that a miscalculation or third-party action could trigger a broader regional war.

Energy markets understand this reality better than politicians. The world's consumers ultimately finance every failure of diplomacy in the Middle East. That is why the greatest danger today lies not merely in renewed hostilities but in the gradual normalization of perpetual low-intensity conflict. If the MoU collapses without a credible diplomatic successor, the region risks settling into a familiar yet dangerous equilibrium: intermittent strikes, periodic retaliation, disrupted shipping lanes and repeated diplomatic resets that never address the underlying disputes. Such instability benefits few beyond those who profit politically or economically from permanent confrontation.

As China's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations Sun Lei stressed at a UN Security Council briefing on the Iranian nuclear issue on Friday, a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities must hold in the Gulf.

"China urges all relevant parties to overcome disruptive factors, refrain from the use or threat of force, preserve and implement the MoU, reach a solution that accommodates the concerns of all parties, lift the sanctions against Iran at an early date, and achieve substantive progress in the political settlement process," Sun said.

The proper settlement of the Iran nuclear issue must respect the legitimate aspirations and lawful rights and interests of the parties concerned. Iran should continue to uphold its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. As a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran enjoys the legitimate right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The US should take concrete actions to create conditions for the political settlement of the Iran nuclear issue, Sun added.

The Middle East has accumulated more than enough examples of wars that were easier to begin than to end. Another prolonged US-Iran confrontation will not produce a decisive winner. It will only weaken regional security, unsettle global markets, burden already strained economies and deepen divisions throughout the international system.

The choice confronting related parties is therefore stark. They can allow strategic mistrust, domestic politics and regional rivalries to dismantle an imperfect but valuable diplomatic opening. Or they can recognize that however unsatisfactory the MoU may have been, its implementation remains infinitely preferable to another round of instability. Even a fragile peace is always better than permanent war.

The world should not have to relearn that lesson yet again.