The war in the Gulf will have to end in compromise
Al Jazeera · LC · trust 48/100
play Live Sign up Show navigation menu Navigation menu News Show more news sections Africa Asia US & Canada Latin America Europe Asia Pacific Middle East Explained Sport Opinion Video More Show more sections Features Economy Human Rights Climate Crisis Investigations Interactives In Pictures Science & Technology Podcasts Travel Sponsored Content play Live Click here to search search Sign up Navigation menu caret-left US-Israel war on Iran Strait of Hormuz What is Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain? Why have strikes resumed? Al Jazeera Originals caret-right OPINION OPINION, Opinion | US-Israel war on Iran The war in the Gulf will have to end in compromise The US and Israel have not achieved their original objectives, Iran has not surrendered and the costs are spreading across the region.
Jordanian politician and former interior minister.
x whatsapp-stroke copylink google Add Al Jazeera on Google info Vessels near the Strait of Hormuz, as seen from Musandam, Oman, on September 2, 2026 [Stringer/Reuters] The current Gulf war does not look like other wars. Conflicts, whether short or prolonged, usually end in one of two ways. Either one side achieves a decisive victory over the other, typically followed by the signing of a surrender agreement and the imposition of the victor’s terms on the defeated party, as happened in the first and second world wars, both of which ended in Allied victory. Or such wars end in a settlement based on the principle of “no victor and no vanquished”, with each side throwing the full extent of its military capabilities into battle against the other. Both sides are exhausted without either achieving a decisive result, at which point they move to end the fighting and reach a settlement that takes their interests into account. The war then ends almost as though it had never begun, apart from the human and material losses it caused.
One example is the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted eight years without either Iran or Iraq achieving its objectives. Iraq did not liberate Arabistan, and Iran did not succeed in overthrowing Iraq’s Baath Party regime.
Looking at America’s modern wars, the truth is that it has not won any of them. It may not have been defeated, but it did not achieve the objectives for which those wars were fought. The image of the helicopter evacuations from Saigon remains vivid, as does the historic scene at Kabul airport, when America’s allies clung desperately to a lifeline, to no avail.
In the Vietnam War, the Americans lost nearly 60,000 military personnel. The result was an agreement in Paris to end the war and provide the United States with a way out, amid a clear Vietnamese victory. The Americans withdrew from Vietnam and the country was unified on Vietnamese terms.
The same was true of the US war in Afghanistan. Thousands of tonnes of bombs were dropped on the country, only for the United States to withdraw suddenly and chaotically, in scenes that resembled an escape from disaster. Then there was the US invasion of Iraq, where the war seemed almost to have been fought on Iran’s behalf. What Tehran had been unable to achieve during the eight-year war, America achieved for it by handing Iraq over to Iran. America may lose wars, but it does not learn from them before starting another.
Today, the current Gulf war is strange and falls outside both of these familiar patterns. Last year, we were surprised by a US-Israeli war on Iran that lasted a little less than two weeks, with the aim of eliminating Iran’s nuclear programme. Yet it suddenly stopped. US warships departed, and Israeli aircraft left the skies above Tehran without dropping their payloads, following a decision by the US president. Both sides claimed victory, despite the fact that the objective of the war had not been achieved.
Things remained unchanged for months before the war suddenly resumed. At the time, the Americans and Iranians were engaged in negotiations mediated by Oman, and talks between the parties were supposed to resume just one day after the start of massive military operations: relentless bombardment from US warships and Israeli aircraft flying around the clock over Iranian cities.
The second surprise was that this war, too, stopped without warning, ushering in a period of threats that fighting would resume: US and Israeli threats met by Iranian threats, and an intermittent war in which an American strike is answered by an Iranian one, and so on. Israel, the occupying state, has meanwhile been kept out of this contest of wills.
This, then, is not a war like other wars. It resembles a cockfight. Nor is it being fought according to the principle of “no victor and no vanquished”. Both sides continue to claim that they possess the will and the ability to fight.
On the battlefield, every American strike is met by an Iranian strike, even if the Iranian response has less impact. But this means that the Iranians have not surrendered, that their resolve has not weakened and that they still retain a relative capacity to confront their adversary.
Turning to President Trump’s decision to maintain the blockade on Iran and tighten the economic sanctions he has described as devastating and unprecedented, it is worth remembering that sanctions have been imposed on Iran for more than 40 years.
This invites comparison with the sanctions and blockade imposed on Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands amid shortages of food and medicine and impoverished Iraqis to the point that they sold their most valuable possessions simply to meet the costs of everyday life.
The blockade and sanctions therefore had an enormous impact on the lives of Iraqis. But is Iran’s situation comparable with Iraq’s? I believe it is entirely different, and the comparison is inaccurate. Iran is several times the size of Iraq. Iraq was surrounded by countries hostile to its political regime, including Iran and Syria. Its only lifeline was Jordan, which was itself constrained at…
Read the original at Al Jazeera →
Open in TruthVane →