Iran, Israel, and the United States: A Path to De-escalation and Coexistence

CONFLICT RESOLUTION - MEDIATION, 9 Mar 2026

Tatsushi Arai - TRANSCEND Media Service

7 Mar 2026 – The first five days of intensive Israeli and American military actions, coupled with Iranian counteroffensives, have adversely affected over 100 million children across fifteen Middle Eastern countries, with nearly 200 children reportedly killed (Save the Children, 2026). This war, like any other, represents adults’ violence against children. Presidents, prime ministers, kings, statesmen, and military commanders—as parents and grandparents—are urged to place the removal of unspeakable human suffering, especially that of children, at the highest priority, and to seek a systematic and sustainable path to ending the war as soon as possible.

Conflict Drivers

Publicized strategic objectives aside, at the human level, many Israeli opinion leaders with whom I have recently held dialogues—including those in the country’s violence-affected southern areas near Gaza—express an earnest desire for security and deep-seated fear of an Iranian-led network of threatening forces. Jewish religious leaders committed to Zionist nation-building firmly embrace what they view as a God-given right to live in the Holy Land without fear and, if necessary, to defend that right by force.

In the United States, despite significant diversity and contestation of views on the Middle East, policymakers’ concerns generally revolve around how to uphold the country’s foundational commitment to liberty and freedom, along with—for many Americans—the religious traditions that underpin those values. For a large number of Americans with limited knowledge of the Middle East, the most pressing concern is preserving an American way of life through a stable international order, including reliable global supply chains of goods and services.

Supporters of the Iranian regime, meanwhile, continue to advocate for the Islamic Revolution that culminated in 1979, viewing their resistance to foreign interference as both a national duty and a religious obligation. In their historical memory, the CIA- and MI6-backed 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh—associated with geopolitical and oil interests—remains an enduring grievance (TMS, 26 June 2017).

At the same time, a growing segment of Iranian civil society strongly opposes the current regime, demanding economic opportunity, freedom of expression, political participation, and accountability in the face of economic decline and widespread corruption. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shi’a militias in Iraq, and the Houthi movement in Yemen each pursue distinct yet partially overlapping goals related to security, autonomy, and resistance to external influence, drawing inspiration and material support from Iran.

Across these nations and movements, a key question confronts political and military leaders: Will the intensification of military action truly achieve their respective needs and goals, especially in the long run? As parents and grandparents, they are called to look into the eyes of their children and grandchildren and answer this question honestly.

The emphasis on long-term consequences is critical because the current war unfolds across four interrelated dimensions, each shaping outcomes on different time horizons:

• Military: Who possesses superior destructive capabilities and can defeat the opponent?
• Political: Who will hold leadership, legitimacy, alliances, and effective control over governance and international relations?
• Economic: How will essential resources, goods, and services be produced and distributed?
• Religious and Cultural: What deeply held beliefs and worldviews shape people’s motivations, and how can they be acknowledged and respected?

At the opening phase of this war, political leaders and the media naturally focused on military gains and political justifications, while gradually elevating the visibility of economic costs. In this regard, the possibility of disruptions to oil and gas supplies from the Gulf, along with a blockage of the Strait of Hormuz, poses serious and growing global risks.

Yet, within the context of the present war, the causal chain of conflict formation and escalation—as reflected in how human motivations drive actions—appears to be unfolding in reverse. Religious and cultural beliefs likely form the underlying foundation from which political, economic, and military dynamics emerge, with all four dimensions remaining deeply intertwined.

For example, to explain Israel’s preemptive attacks—Operation Rising Lion—on Iran’s nuclear facilities, missile capabilities, and military infrastructure in June 2025, which served as a prelude to the 2026 offensives, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referenced a biblical verse about a lion and framed his decision to strike Iran in light of lessons from World War II and the Holocaust, describing it as an existential struggle for the nation’s survival.

Meanwhile, in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. military’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January 2026, President Donald Trump was asked in a New York Times interview whether there were any limits on his authority in matters of international intervention. President Trump replied, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” adding that he did not “need international law” (6 January 2026, New York Times). His remark reflected that, in his own admission, his personal sense of morality—presumably rooted in part in his religious beliefs and worldview—alone can limit his consequential decisions on the global stage.

In Iran, the language of martyrdom occupies an important place in political and religious discourse. Within Shi’a Islam, the historical memory of sacrifice in the face of injustice is deeply revered. A powerful example of enduring significance is the martyrdom of Imam Husayn—the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and the son of Ali, the fourth caliph—who died in 680 CE at the Battle of Karbala after confronting the vastly larger forces of the Umayyad caliphate. For many believers, this historical precedent symbolizes an enduring model of faithfulness and moral courage, exemplifying the duty to resist oppression even at the cost of one’s life.

In identity-based conflicts such as this, the will to fight or resist often derives less from calculations of military strength or political gain than from deeply held beliefs, worldviews, and historical identities. Economic fears, such as the loss of livelihood, can further reinforce this resolve.

To de-escalate the conflict, therefore, policymakers must reconsider their priorities. Greater attention should be given to addressing essential needs, beginning with the deepest level—the religious and cultural foundations of motivation—and moving upward to the economic, political, and military domains.

Likely Outcomes of Further Escalation

While the entanglement of U.S., Israeli, Iranian, and Hezbollah military actions currently drives the conflict, the resulting damage, retaliatory strikes, and expressed will for self-defense reverberate across at least fourteen additional states in the region, from Qatar to Turkey and Cyprus. Despite the growing complexity and speed of escalation, a pattern emerges beneath the uncertainty: the greater the force and destruction, the stronger the desire for retaliation. This dynamic draws an increasing number of state and non-state actors into the conflict, with no end in sight.

If the cycle of escalation continues, the expanding sequence of offensive and counteroffensive actions may lead to several devastating outcomes:

• Nuclear strikes on Iranian—and possibly Hezbollah—targets, framed as “precise” or “surgical” operations undertaken after “all other options have been exhausted.”
• A prolonged global economic and financial crisis caused by disruptions to oil and gas production and transportation in the Gulf, combined with the closure or blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of global energy supplies passes. In the face of growing uncertainty and fear of further economic downturn, financial markets may eventually crumble.
• The consolidation of power by more hardline Iranian leaders committed to intensified confrontation with Israel and the United States. Such developments could also trigger internal instability or even prolonged civil strife within Iran involving regime opponents, U.S.-backed Kurdish forces, and other minority groups.
• Deepening sectarian divisions and violence, particularly along Sunni–Shi’a lines, as well as broader religious and civilizational tensions involving Jewish, Christian, and Muslim communities—not only in the Middle East but also globally, including in the United States and Europe.
• The resurgence and expansion of transnational terrorist networks, including groups linked to Al-Qaeda seeking to capitalize on rising anti-Israel and anti-U.S. sentiments.
• A decisive restructuring of global alliances and the geopolitical order. Some U.S. allies—such as Japan, South Korea, and members of NATO—increasingly question Washington’s predictability and reliability, while rival powers exploit the resulting instability. Russia, for example, as a major energy exporter, seeks to benefit strategically and conclude its war with Ukraine on terms favorable to its own interests. Declining international trust in the United States as a guarantor of security would, in turn, undermine Israel’s ability to rely on partnership with the United States for its defense.

These and other consequences, especially when occurring simultaneously, become increasingly plausible if the current trajectory of escalation continues unchecked.

A Possible Way Out

Further intensification of military offensives would not only increase the likelihood of these devastating consequences but also prevent the United States, Israel, Iran, and other parties from addressing their respective core needs. A path to de-escalation—and ultimately to conflict management—requires significant courage, calculated risk-taking, and imaginative diplomacy, all of which remain attainable. Illustrative steps toward realizing such a path are presented below in the spirit of inquiry and joint exploration:

1. Regional leadership: As a general vision, the United States and Israel would best serve their long-term interests by enabling regional mechanisms in the Gulf and the broader Middle East to take greater leadership and ownership in addressing the security crisis and the underlying political and economic issues. The United States and Israel may remain actively engaged as essential parties, but not as overriding military powers.
2. Incremental de-escalation: The de-escalation process may follow Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension Reduction (GRIT)—a phased, incremental approach in which adversaries take de-escalatory steps, communicate them to their opponents, and build a reciprocal process of tension reduction. The concept, developed by psychologist Charles E. Osgood, was originally designed to promote U.S. and Soviet nuclear tension-reduction measures during the Cold War.
3. Mediated engagement: Conflict parties, along with regional stakeholders, may consider China as an intermediary and guarantor in the early phase of de-escalation. Having successfully mediated the Iran–Saudi rapprochement in March 2023—restoring diplomatic relations and easing a prolonged rivalry—and possessing strong interests in stable regional energy supplies, Beijing could serve as an authoritative and credible facilitator despite U.S. reluctance. Omani and/or Qatari support—potentially involving renewed engagement with Iran as inescapable neighbors—could also prove catalytic for sustained impact.
4. United Nations involvement: The United Nations General Assembly must convene to discuss the impacts of the war, explore potential solutions, and adopt resolutions that complement the work of the divided Security Council, which has repeatedly proven unable to lead de-escalation and conflict resolution.
5. Regional and global mechanisms: Existing regional and global organizations with varying degrees of influence must also assume a greater role in tension reduction, confidence-building, and conflict management. These include the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the Arab League, and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
6. Peacekeeping and deconfliction: Regionally led peacekeeping and deconfliction measures, designed to ensure a phased and reciprocal approach to tension reduction, may also become necessary.
7. Nuclear and missile diplomacy: Mutually acceptable conditions and processes must be developed over time to revive talks on Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities. The destruction of physical infrastructure can only delay weapons development; the knowledge and expertise required for weapons production outlast military campaigns and the deaths of scientists and engineers.
8. Regional security conference: In the longer term, a Middle East Conference for Security and Cooperation (MECSC) involving all regional conflict parties and affected stakeholder states could be established, with the United States, China, and other major external actors serving as observers or additional participants as appropriate. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE)—a multinational mechanism that brought together thirty-five Cold War adversaries in the 1970s across security, economic, and human rights discussions under rotating chairmanship—may serve as a historical reference. The proposed multilateral conference would, however, need to reflect the region’s distinct historical, religious, and geostrategic context.
9. Atonement and reconciliation: Religiously and culturally informed, regionally led processes of atonement, forgiveness, and reconciliation should eventually emerge to break cycles of revenge. The option of “strategic forgiveness,” recently proposed by an Arab opinion leader regarding Gulf nations’ response to Iranian actions, merits attention. Long-term collective support for physical reconstruction, as well as psychosocial assistance and trauma healing, could also form part of these efforts.
10. Citizen accountability: In the absence of consistent global compliance with the United Nations Charter and other foundational instruments of international law, citizens’ collective action and electoral accountability remain among the most effective means of holding leaders responsible for the conduct of war. In Iran, Israel, the United States, and other countries with electoral systems, the basic human needs of citizens affected by war should feature prominently in political debates, media coverage, and public discourse.

This article has examined the basic needs of the conflict parties, the likely scenarios of further escalation, and a possible path toward de-escalation and resolution to avert these undesirable outcomes. It underscores the view that the most important task of statesmen is to prevent war—or, when war occurs, to bring it to a responsible and timely conclusion.

Proposed measures for tension reduction and conflict management may encounter strong resistance and skepticism, given the repeated failures of diplomacy and dialogue. However, as a long-time dialogue facilitator, mediator, and conflict resolution trainer working with diplomats, government officials, leaders of international organizations, and military personnel, the author knows firsthand that the quality of diplomacy and dialogue varies widely—and that some efforts are conducted poorly or under duress. A strong case must therefore be made for cultivating a new generation of skilled and responsible leaders capable of ensuring the mutual fulfillment of nations’ and citizens’ basic human needs through peaceful means.

___________________________________________________

Tatsushi Arai is a peace researcher and conflict resolution practitioner with twenty-eight years of field experience in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Asia-Pacific. He is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace, Development, Environment, and an Associate Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies at Kent State University in Ohio, USA. His books include Creativity and Conflict Resolution: Alternative Pathways to Peace and Functional Coexistence in Socio-Political Conflict: Enabling Social Change Across Decades (co-edited with M. Tadevosyan). Email: tats0919@gmail.com Website: https://www.kent.edu/spcs/tatsushi-tats-arai

This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 9 Mar 2026.

Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: Iran, Israel, and the United States: A Path to De-escalation and Coexistence, is included. Thank you.

If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.

There are no comments so far.