The prolonged conflict between Iran and the United States has rendered a complete peace difficult to achieve. But, there is a possibility of a limited peace to sustain, if both actors act rationally.  The United States and Israel started an escalation against Iran on February 28, which has prolonged into more than 70 days of war, without a lasting agreement. A fragile ceasefire was signed between Iran and U.S. on April 16, which Trump says is on a ‘massive life support’. The probability of a lasting peace appears low, as both sides have yet to sit for a dialogue on equal basis, acknowledging the principles of ‘sovereignty’ and ‘non-intervention’. Thus, how can two adversaries, with completely opposing interests, agree to a lasting peace and cooperation?

Evaluating the peace prospects, it seems unlikely for mutual trust and cooperation to foster due to decades of hostilities. However, it is generally agreed that trust and friendship are not as important for diplomacy. The recognition of ‘mutual costs’ and ‘strategic realities’ is needed. Thus, a more pragmatic solution is to agree on some concessions from both sides, giving up their rigid stances. Tensions are likely to reduce not through a full peace treaty, but specific issue-based negotiations. This may include a temporary military halt (as done through the ceasefire), fresh negotiations on the nuclear program, and an acceptable agreement regarding the Strait of Hormuz. This would not be possible with the current stance of non-compromise and rigidity from both sides.

Another strand of the peace process must involve addressing the regional security challenges. The power struggle has led to U.S. bases in the region, while a sponsorship of proxies by Iran. A conflict between a few states has extended to a region already mired by hostilities and instability.  Iran views the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf and its neighbouring countries as part of its containment and weakening approach towards Iran. Consequently, conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen have become a direct result of the war between the USA and Iran. From proxy wars to cyber wars, missile battles to naval incidents, the peace process is repeatedly tested, followed by cycles of escalation. Thus, attempts for at least the minimal level of confidence-building measures and a non-confrontational stance between the two would be necessary to make the peace durable.

The United States and Israel need to give up their aspirations of regime change in Iran. One of the major strategic miscalculations made by U.S. and Israel was the assumption that Iran’s political system would immediately collapse under pressure. However, Iran’s political system is different from that of smaller and more isolated states, like Venezuela. The decapitation of the Supreme Leader did not lead the system to collapse. Instead, it is backed by a deeply institutionalized structure to sustain the revolutionary ideals. Moreover, the adversaries underestimated the political culture of Iran, which put an emphasis on national sovereignty and retaliation to external interference. The same miscalculation was made by Saddam Hussain, while attacking Iran in 1980, with the assumption that the weak and newly established regime would not survive a military escalation. Thus, Iran should be dealt with by considering it an equal, sovereign state.

Pakistan has assumed an important role in mediation during the 2026 US-Iran war due to its relations with both countries. Islamabad has a geopolitical leverage: it is bordered by Iran, it has long security cooperation with the United States, and a close relationship with the Gulf countries and China. This balance of diplomacy allows Pakistan to mediate between the actors, whose hostilities do not allow direct negotiations. The latest diplomatic endeavours suggest that Pakistan has been actively supporting the indirect dialogue, providing a platform for communication to reach a ceasefire and de-escalation.

The rationale behind Pakistan’s involvement is geostrategic as well as economic. The current conflict is threatening Pakistan’s security situation, energy security, trade routes and economic aspirations. The instability in the Gulf has increased the oil prices. It affects sea trade and creates a security threat for Pakistan’s western borders. Moreover, being a middle power, playing a major role in the de-escalation of a major power’s conflict raises the diplomatic clout of Pakistan. Hence, Islamabad has a compelling interest to make efforts for peace between the two sides. However, the mediation role of Pakistan is limited as it has little influence to make either side agree to substantial strategic concessions.

If any meaningful peace effort is to reach, then both sides should have a pragmatic rather than purely ideological approach. The United States must understand that it doesn’t need to be all or nothing when it comes to Iran’s compliance. Likewise, Iran must be aware that stability in the region lies in Iran’s responsible behaviour, compromise and restraint. The conflict can be eased by confidence-building measures, mutual will for cooperation, holding regional security dialogues, and engaging in multilateral diplomacy. Sustainable peace will not be brought about by force but by the strategic stability being preferred over perpetual conflict by all actors.