EDITORIAL: The latest exchange of strikes between the United States and Iran has raised fresh concerns about the viability of the ceasefire established under the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the interim arrangement that offered a rare opportunity to halt a dangerous cycle of confrontation in the Gulf.
While both sides continue to accuse each other of violating the agreement, the renewed hostilities underscore a sobering reality: military retaliation may satisfy immediate political objectives, but it cannot produce lasting regional stability.
President Donald Trump’s decision to order fresh strikes against Iranian targets, citing attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, has once again heightened fears of a wider conflict.
Tehran’s swift retaliation against US military installations in Kuwait and Bahrain demonstrates that neither side is prepared to absorb military action without responding in kind.
Yet both Washington and Tehran understand that a full-scale war would be enormously costly and unlikely to produce results materially different from previous rounds of confrontation.
An outright resumption of the conflict therefore remains improbable, even as tit-for-tat exchanges place increasing strain on the ceasefire.
Reflecting his characteristically contradictory approach, President Trump declared on Wednesday, “I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them,” while simultaneously insisting that the confrontation was unlikely to escalate further, remarking, “They hit a couple of ships, and so we hit them much harder.”
The responsibility for preserving the MoU rests with both parties. Washington cannot expect Iran to remain committed to an agreement if its key provisions remain unimplemented.
The understanding envisaged sanctions relief, the unfreezing of Iranian assets and an end to Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon.
Yet Israel has consistently acted to undermine ceasefire arrangements, whether in Gaza, Lebanon or, indirectly, in relation to Iran. Its preference for sustained military pressure over negotiated settlements has repeatedly complicated diplomatic efforts and drawn the United States deeper into regional confrontations.
The re-imposition of restrictions on Iranian oil exports has further reinforced Tehran’s belief that Washington is unwilling to honour its commitments under the MoU.
At the same time, whilst Iran’s efforts to assert control over navigation in the Strait of Hormuz by targeting vessels that transit the waterway without its approval provide strategic leverage in its confrontation with the US, they also violate the internationally accepted principle of freedom of navigation and risk alienating much of the international community.
The constructive role played by Pakistan and Qatar in brokering the agreement should not be allowed to go to waste.
Both countries have rightly called for restraint, dialogue and strict adherence to the MoU. Their continued engagement, supported by the United Nations and regional stakeholders, offers the best hope of preventing isolated military incidents from escalating into a broader regional crisis.
The Islamabad MoU remains the only credible framework for reducing tensions and rebuilding confidence between Washington and Tehran. Both sides must implement their commitments in both letter and spirit, recognising that compromise - not confrontation - is the only sustainable path to regional peace and stability.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026