Middle East war, peacekeeping and diplomacy

The current situation in the Middle East offers only a dim prospect of peace. The war involving Israel, the United States, and Iran continues with little sign of ending soon. However, recent diplomatic efforts by several countries have opened a small new possibility for establishing peace.

On February 28, while the United States and Iran were holding reconciliation talks in Oman, the United States and Israel began Operation Epic Fury. Iran responded with its own actions. The war, which the American president had claimed would end in a week, has now passed a month and has become even more destructive.

In this serious prevailing situation, important questions are being arisen. What is the real role of the United Nations in keeping the peace? Is the UN limited to making statements and expressing concern? What steps are Arab and Muslim countries, or Western powers, actually taking to reduce the intensity of the war?

Existing UN Peacekeeping Operations

The United Nations has several long-standing peacekeeping missions in the region that have been operating for many years. In the present full-scale regional war, however, the usefulness of these old missions is being tested. These missions continue to work on unstable borders and send regular reports to the Security Council.

The oldest of these is the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation (UNTSO). It has been sending unarmed military observers to the area since 1948. UNTSO cannot stop the fighting or use force. Its job is to observe events impartially and gather information that helps international diplomacy. It also supports two other missions: the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), which has monitored the ceasefire between Israel and Syria on the Golan Heights since 1974, and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). UNIFIL has been in Lebanon since 1978 and now has about 10,000 peacekeepers. They monitor ceasefire violations and keep contact between the Israeli and Lebanese armed forces.

Structural Limitations of the UN Peacekeeping Model

The UN peacekeeping model has clear limitations. It failed to prevent the high number of deaths in the Gaza war between October 2023 and March 2026. During that time, 391 United Nations staff members were killed. Of these, 310 worked for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), and 81 worked for associate agencies. Several peacekeepers and observers from UNIFIL were also injured or killed when their positions on the Lebanese border came under direct attack.

In times of high tension, these missions often appear to play only a minor role. This is because the peacekeeping model has built-in limitations.

Narrow Mandates: The missions have narrow mandates. They are mainly there to watch and report on ceasefire violations, not to stop them by force. For example, UNIFIL has recorded more than 10,000 air and ground violations since the end of 2024, but it does not have the power or the troops to prevent them.

Consent-based Model: UN operations depend on the consent of the countries involved. When the fighting parties put military goals ahead of neutrality, the ability of peacekeepers to intervene directly becomes limited.

Politics of Security Council: Decisions in the Security Council require agreement among the major powers. In the present crisis, the Security Council is deeply divided. Resolution 2817, for instance, has been criticised for not dealing with the root causes of the conflict or suggesting a balanced ceasefire.

Complex of Modern-time War: Traditional peacekeeping was designed for wars between states. Today's conflicts are more complex because they involve non-state armed groups and proxy forces.

Coalition Diplomatic Initiatives

Several regional organisations and international powers are trying in different ways to end the wars and reduce tension. The European Union is working with the Gulf Cooperation Council to protect shipping and keep energy supplies stable. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has condemned attacks on civilian targets and supported the sovereignty of its member states.

Qatar has been the most active mediator. It has helped arrange direct talks between Israel and Hamas on releasing hostages and agreeing temporary ceasefires. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have stayed in close contact with both Iran and Western countries to stop the conflict from spreading further. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has held several emergency meetings to condemn Israeli actions and to support Palestinian rights at the International Court of Justice. It has focused more on economic and political pressure than on military steps.

The European Union and the United Kingdom have mainly supported humanitarian aid and the idea of a two-state solution. The European Union has provided millions of Euros to create a humanitarian corridor in Gaza and is running a naval mission called Operation Aspides to protect shipping in the Red Sea. However, because its member states disagree among themselves, the European Union has not been able to impose strong sanctions on Israel. Spain, Ireland, and Norway have taken a firm political position: they say the Palestinian state must be formally recognised before any final agreement is reached. They believe this recognition is necessary to put Palestine on an equal footing with Israel in talks.

The United Kingdom has taken military action against Houthi attacks in the Red Sea but has also called for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza. It has helped deliver aid by air through Jordan and Egypt. The British government has put forward a Five Point Plan. Its main conditions are the removal of Hamas and other armed groups from leadership in Gaza and the creation of a temporary government of experts to rebuild the Gaza after the war.

China, Russia, and Japan are also involved in peace efforts in their own ways. China has held talks in Beijing to bring different Palestinian groups together and has called for Palestine to become a full member of the United Nations. Russia has repeatedly proposed ceasefires in the Security Council. It describes the crisis as a failure of Western policy and has kept direct contact with Hamas and Iranian leaders. Japan has offered financial help to the Palestinians through what it calls humanitarian diplomacy. It is also trying to build a regional peace framework with Jordan and Egypt. In the past, however, many peace efforts by countries such as Qatar and Egypt have failed because none of the parties would give up their main demands.

Russia's main condition is to reduce American control over Middle East peace efforts and to create a system of multilateral mediation. It has suggested holding an international conference that includes not only the United States but also the United Nations, the Arab League, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. Russia believes that lasting peace requires guarantees for Iran's security and respect for the sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria. It has also proposed ceasefire to the Security Council to the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces and the release of Palestinian prisoners.

Japan has proposed a special initiative called the Corridor of Peace and Prosperity. It calls for an end to military conflict and the creation of a strong economic base in the West Bank so that Palestinians can become self-sufficient over time. Japan has suggested that Japan, Jordan, Israel, and Palestine work together to build a joint agro-industrial park as a model of regional cooperation. Japan believes that political stability cannot be achieved without economic development.

Pakistan's Mediation: 15 Points vs. 5 Points

Pakistan's role as a mediator has attracted particular attention. As the war has spread to involve Israel, Iran, the United States, and Lebanon, Pakistan has acted as a direct messenger between Washington and Tehran. It has passed a 15-point proposal from the United States to Iran and five counter-proposals from Iran to the United States. Although earlier efforts to reduce the fighting have failed, these exchanges have kept the possibility of ceasefire talks alive.

The American 15-point proposal aims to prevent the war from becoming a wider regional conflict. Its central goals are to protect Israel's security, secure the release of hostages held by Hamas and Hezbollah, and reduce the military strength of groups supported by Iran. The main aim is to achieve military stability.

Iran's five-point counter-proposal treats the crisis as both a military and a political struggle over sovereignty. Its key demands include the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and Lebanon and the lifting of long-standing economic sanctions on Iran. Iran has stated clearly that outside interference in the region must stop if peace is to be achieved.

Analysts believe Pakistan's active role comes from its position of trust. It shares a long border and religious ties with Iran, while it also has decades of close military and strategic relations with the United States. This balanced position allows Pakistan to act as a unique neutral channel. However, if Israel rejects any of the proposals, Pakistan's efforts may be fruitless.

For a lasting solution, it is necessary to build a strong regional peace structure with the help of the United Nations and its agencies. Temporary ceasefires alone cannot bring lasting stability without solid institutions to support them. These institutions would monitor agreements, coordinate humanitarian work, and keep diplomatic channels open.

Break from War Mitigation: Then Crisis resolution and Peace Process

For a lasting settlement, it is essential to build a strong regional peace infrastructure, supported by the United Nations and its specialised agencies. Without a strong institutional foundation, it is not possible to achieve lasting stability through temporary ceasefires. Monitoring compliance with agreements, coordinating humanitarian activities, and diplomatic outreach must continue. In peace-building terms, this is called the ‘post-conflict institutional infrastructure’, which acts as the backbone to maintain stability in the post-conflict period.

In the present situation, it is most important to reduce tension through a step-by-step diplomatic process. Trust between the parties is extremely low, so the first goal should be to bring the main sides to the negotiating table without expecting a full agreement immediately. Direct or indirect communication must be restarted to reduce misunderstandings and the risk of further war.

Diplomatic Proposals and Internal Coordination:

Any peace plan must have the full support of both Israel and the United States. Before any proposal is made, there must be complete agreement between Israel's political and military leaders. Without this internal unity, diplomatic efforts are likely to fail.

Practical Conditions for De-escalation:

Before moving to larger talks, practical steps are needed to reduce the fighting. These could include stopping cross-border attacks, limiting missile strikes, protecting civilian buildings, and creating ways to prevent accidental clashes. This will prepare the necessary ground for deeper discussions.

Guarantee and Supervision Measures: To make any ceasefire or peace agreement lasting, strong international guarantees are required. A group of regional and global powers, including the European Union, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, could monitor the agreement. Such wide participation would make the deal more acceptable and reduce the chance that any side would break it later.

Parallel Discussions and Expert Groups:

The peace process could be divided into several parallel tracks. The separate expert groups can work on ceasefire arrangements, monitoring systems, humanitarian aid, and long-term political solutions.

Public Participation and Accountability: The process should not remain only among diplomats. Public participation is important. Countries involved could include their parliaments where necessary. Open debate and parliamentary oversight can help build public support for difficult decisions and make any agreement more durable.

Expectations of a Peace Dividend

If these steps are followed, it may be possible to create three types of peace benefits over time. Firstly, a short-term de-escalation benefit would come from a temporary halt in fighting and the opening of humanitarian corridors, which would ease the suffering of common people. Secondly, a lasting ceasefire would bring a ceasefire benefit, allowing reconstruction to begin and economic stability to return. 

In the longer term, these gains could develop into a full peace dividend that encourages wider regional cooperation and lasting stability.

Writer: Badrul Hasan is Development and Humanitarian Policy Expert

The article was originally published in the print and online editions of The Daily Samakal and has been rewritten for the English version by Mohammed Humayun Kabir, Senior Sub-Editor.