No One Bombs Their Way to Peace

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 29 Jun 2026

Raïs Neza Boneza – TRANSCEND Media Service

22 Jun 2026 – The first lesson of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran is not that military power has become irrelevant. It is that military power, even when overwhelming, does not automatically produce political obedience. After months of war, disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, regional escalation and a diplomatic scramble involving Pakistan and Qatar, Washington and Tehran are negotiating in Switzerland. The talks have produced a preliminary framework, including discussion of nuclear inspections, sanctions relief, maritime security and regional de-escalation. But the central question is not whether the parties can sign documents. It is whether either side can live with what those documents imply.

Iran enters these negotiations wounded, damaged and under immense pressure. But it does not enter defeated. That distinction matters. For years, Western and Israeli policy toward Iran rested on a familiar assumption: military superiority, economic pressure and political isolation would eventually force Tehran into submission. The theory was elegant, as theories often are when they are designed in air-conditioned offices far from the people expected to surrender. The reality has been less cooperative. Iran absorbed the attack, endured enormous destruction, mobilised nationalist sentiment and kept the conflict costly enough to make an unlimited war politically dangerous for Washington. It did not need to defeat the United States and Israel in the conventional sense. It only had to deny them the clean, decisive victory they expected. That is the dirty secret of asymmetric conflict: the weaker party can win simply by refusing to disappear.

The preliminary talks in Switzerland therefore represent more than diplomacy. They are an admission that Iran remains a strategic actor. Washington may describe the process as a path to fundamentally changing relations with the Iranian people, but diplomatic language is often political deodorant: it does not remove the smell of reality; it only tries to make it tolerable. The reality is that the United States is negotiating because coercion alone did not settle the conflict. Iran, meanwhile, is negotiating because war has a cost even for those who can claim political resilience. The country needs relief from sanctions, access to frozen assets, restored oil revenues and space to rebuild. Iran’s leaders know that survival is not the same thing as prosperity. A nation can endure war for a long time; it cannot indefinitely feed its people on patriotic speeches and televised maps.

This is where the agreement becomes dangerous as well as promising. The first major issue is nuclear verification. Reports indicate that Iran has agreed in principle to permit the return of international inspectors, but questions remain over access, timing, specific facilities and the status of enriched material after the war. These are not technical footnotes. They are the core of the agreement. Every inspection dispute can become a new accusation; every accusation can become a new pretext for escalation. The second issue is sanctions relief. Washington appears prepared to offer limited waivers and mechanisms allowing Iranian oil sales and access to some frozen funds. But sanctions relief is never just economic. It is political leverage disguised as banking procedure. The United States will want compliance before releasing more space. Iran will want guarantees before giving up more leverage. Both sides will call this “confidence-building.” In ordinary language, it means neither side trusts the other enough to blink first.

The third issue is regional order. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the de-escalation arrangements involving Lebanon and the broader effort to contain Israeli-Iranian confrontation show that this is no longer only about centrifuges and uranium. It is about who sets the limits of power in the Middle East. Iran wants recognition that it cannot be excluded from the regional architecture. Israel wants assurance that Iranian influence will be constrained. Arab states want calm, trade, investment and fewer missiles flying over their hotels. Washington wants all of this without appearing to have conceded too much. A modest ambition, really: to reorganise one of the most combustible regions on Earth while keeping everyone’s domestic political base satisfied.

The real loser may be the old belief that Israel can determine the regional agenda through military escalation alone. Israel remains militarily formidable. But the war has shown that even overwhelming force does not erase Iran’s role; it can deepen it. Every attack that fails to produce regime collapse risks turning Iranian resistance into a regional symbol and Iranian survival into a political victory. This does not mean Iran has “won” in a simple sense. Its infrastructure is damaged. Its population has suffered. Its economy remains constrained. Its leadership faces deep uncertainty. Victory is a dangerous word when civilians are burying the dead and governments are negotiating over access to medicine, fuel and money. But Iran has achieved something important: it has made itself impossible to ignore.

That is why the next sixty days matter more than the first signatures. The agreement must answer practical questions that political theatre prefers to postpone. Who controls the reconstruction funds? Who monitors their use? What guarantees prevent sanctions from returning after the next American election? What happens when Israel decides that Iranian compliance is insufficient? What happens when Iranian hardliners conclude that diplomacy has become surrender with better tailoring? These are not minor details. They are the agreement. History is full of peace accords that looked impressive at the signing ceremony and fragile the moment the cameras left. A ceasefire is not peace. A memorandum is not trust. A handshake in Switzerland does not erase decades of war, sanctions, assassinations, proxy conflict and mutual humiliation.

Still, diplomacy is not nothing. The fact that Washington and Tehran are speaking directly, through intermediaries and under pressure from a region exhausted by instability, is itself significant. It creates a narrow corridor between catastrophe and compromise. The task now is to keep that corridor open. Iran has not defeated the United States. The United States has not defeated Iran. Israel has not secured the strategic outcome it wanted. And the region has not escaped its demons. But perhaps, after so much fire, all sides have discovered a simple truth: no one can bomb their way into a stable Middle East. The war may have ended on paper. The difficult part begins now.

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

____________________________________________

Raïs Neza Boneza is the author of fiction as well as non-fiction, poetry books and articles. He was born in the Katanga province of the Democratic Republic of Congo (Former Zaïre). He is also an activist and peace practitioner. Raïs is a member of the TRANSCEND Media Service Editorial Committee and a convener of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment for Central and African Great Lakes. He uses his work to promote artistic expressions as a means to deal with conflicts and maintaining mental wellbeing, spiritual growth and healing. Raïs has travelled extensively in Africa and around the world as a lecturer, educator and consultant for various NGOs and institutions. His work is premised on art, healing, solidarity, peace, conflict transformation and human dignity issues and works also as freelance journalist. You can reach him at rais.boneza@gmail.com – http://www.raisnezaboneza.no

Go to Original – rboneza.substack.com

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.