War is always fought twice: once on the battlefield with guns and missiles, and again at the negotiation table with diplomacy and politics. History shows that the latter is often much more challenging. While the sound of gunfire may cease one day, hatred and distrust do not easily dissipate. The true test begins not with a ceasefire but after it.
With the United States and Iran finally agreeing to a ceasefire, the Middle East conflict that has shaken the world for the past three and a half months has entered a pause. The ceasefire memorandum of understanding (MOU) took effect on June 18, leading the US to lift its maritime blockade while Iran began procedures to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The two nations plan to engage in follow-up negotiations over the next 60 days to address key issues, including Iran's nuclear program, the easing of economic sanctions, and management of the Strait of Hormuz.
However, the path to peace is fraught with challenges from the outset. Initially, US and Iranian delegations were scheduled to meet in Switzerland on June 19 for a signing ceremony and to commence follow-up negotiations. Yet, uncertainty looms as Iran's delegation has not been confirmed, and US Vice President JD Vance has postponed his visit to Switzerland, casting doubt on the negotiation timeline. While a ceasefire has been achieved, the dialogue necessary to forge peace has yet to begin.
A more significant issue is that the embers of war still smolder across the Middle East. Reports indicate that Israel, which has consistently opposed a ceasefire between the US and Iran, conducted airstrikes on Hezbollah facilities in southern Lebanon on the same day. This action directly contradicts the MOU's first article, which calls for a permanent ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon. Iran is unlikely to relinquish its influence over groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Thus, the agreement between the US and Iran does not imply an immediate transition to a peaceful order across the region.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi recently remarked that the second phase of negotiations would be significantly more challenging than the first. Indeed, the remaining agenda items, such as Iran's nuclear development and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, are far more complex than the ceasefire itself. Additionally, both the US and Iran are claiming victory in the conflict, complicating future negotiations. The US asserts it has destroyed Iranian nuclear facilities and brought Iran to the negotiating table, while Iran contends it has prevented regime collapse and forced the US to negotiate. Both sides face domestic political pressures that make concessions difficult.
Moreover, the negotiations are intertwined with the political fates of both leaders. President Trump must showcase achievements in resolving the nuclear issue while avoiding criticism for conceding too much to Iran. Conversely, Iran's leadership risks significant damage to its legitimacy if it appears to capitulate to US pressure. This creates a dilemma where compromise is necessary in negotiations, yet both sides must maintain a hardline stance in their domestic political arenas.
The deeper issue lies in the entrenched distrust between the US and Iran. Over the past several decades, the two nations have repeatedly engaged in negotiations only to break them. Iran suspects the US could renege on any agreement, while the US is wary that Iran might use negotiations to buy time. The 2015 Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA) was effectively nullified when the US withdrew, and President Trump has further eroded trust by conducting airstrikes against Iran while negotiations were ongoing. Thus, the challenge of this negotiation lies not just in signing documents but in determining how much trust can be placed in each other's commitments.
As time passes, the leverage in negotiations may shift more toward Iran. The prolonged war has led to rising international oil prices and a global economic downturn, which also burdens the US. The US is already considering a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, and President Trump mentioned in a recent interview that the agreement was made to prevent a global economic recession. With midterm elections approaching, stabilizing energy prices and preventing economic decline are paramount for Trump.
Above all, a critical variable in these negotiations is the Strait of Hormuz. According to the MOU, Iran has committed to ensuring the free passage of vessels over the next 60 days. However, if the US fails to secure permanent free passage in the Strait during this negotiation period, it could be viewed as a victory for Iran. Iran has already indicated that it could impose costs in any form after the negotiation period ends.
Ultimately, the next 60 days will be a decisive battleground. While the war has ceased, peace has yet to begin. All unresolved issues surrounding the nuclear question, the Strait of Hormuz, the conflict between Israel and Iran-aligned armed groups, and the lifting of sanctions remain on the negotiation table.
History often shows that peace can be more challenging than war. A ceasefire is not the end of conflict but the beginning of a new order. The outcome of the upcoming negotiations between the US and Iran could either usher in a new phase of stability in the Middle East or leave it in a prolonged state of tension.
The second round of the Middle East conflict will no longer be fought on the battlefield. The contest will now unfold in negotiation rooms, diplomatic arenas, and economic spheres. The results will significantly impact not only the Middle East but also the energy market, the global economy, and even the South Korean economy. With the guns silenced, the real war is just beginning.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.