US calls on China to prevent Iran from closing Hormuz and disrupting oil flows.
Statuses
Qatar closes airspace until further notice.
Chinese embassy in Qatar urges citizens to enhance safety measures.
Araghchi is in Russia to discuss common challenges and common threats with Putin.
US strike on nuke sites but not for bombing Israel is a green light to bomb Israel.
The Art of War and the Paradox of Peacemaking: A Treatise on the Limits of External Mediation
The art of war is not solely defined by the clash of swords or the detonation of bombs. It is also a discipline of patience, strategy, and the calculated use of restraint. When peace is desired by the international community but resisted by the belligerents, the challenge becomes one of indirect influence—of shaping conditions so that the cost of continued conflict becomes unbearable. This is the paradox of peacemaking in the absence of willingness: it is not a matter of persuasion, but of exhaustion.
History shows that external powers often find themselves trapped in a liminal space between intervention and detachment. When one party to a conflict is unwilling to negotiate, and the other is unwilling to concede, the role of outside actors is not to force resolution but to manage the terrain of conflict. This means withholding support, allowing the weight of war to settle on the shoulders of those who refuse to yield, and creating circumstances where the cost of continuation becomes a burden too heavy to bear. It is a strategy of attrition, not aggression.
Consider the case of Afghanistan under Trump’s administration. Despite extensive diplomatic efforts, the Afghan government’s resistance to peace talks with the Taliban persisted. Rather than escalating military support, Trump’s approach involved reducing aid, withdrawing troops, and limiting backing for local militias. This created a power vacuum that the Taliban exploited, ultimately leading to the fall of Kabul. The lesson here is not that inaction is preferable, but that the withdrawal of external backing can accelerate the collapse of a regime or movement that clings to conflict.
A similar dynamic unfolded in Ukraine. Trump’s administration, while publicly supportive of Ukraine, also signaled a willingness to temper direct aid to Kyiv. This did not mean abandoning Ukraine entirely, but rather creating a scenario where the Ukrainian government would be forced to confront the reality of its position: that without overwhelming external support, its capacity to resist Russia would diminish. The logic here is not to provoke war, but to allow the weight of war to act as a catalyst for negotiation.
In conflicts where one side is entrenched in its position, the role of outside powers is to ensure that the cost of continuation is borne by the parties themselves. This does not require the external actor to be neutral—it requires them to be strategic. By limiting resources, reducing intervention, and allowing the conflict to play out, external actors can create conditions where the belligerents are forced to confront the futility of their resistance. This is not a moral judgment on either side, but a pragmatic recognition that peace is not a gift, but a result of exhaustion.
Applying this framework to the current conflict between Israel and Iran, the United States finds itself in a unique position. Its historical and geopolitical alignment with Israel, shaped by decades of support, has created a dynamic where the U.S. is perceived as a guarantor of Israel’s security. This perception limits the ability of any president—Trump included—to impose external conditions that might pressure Israel to compromise. However, the same logic of attrition applies. If the U.S. were to gradually reduce its military and diplomatic backing for Israel, the result could be a scenario where Israel, facing escalating Iranian aggression and the absence of a reliable external shield, is forced to reconsider its stance. The assumption here is not that Israel would surrender, but that the cost of unending conflict with Iran, in a context of diminished U.S. support, could become untenable.
This does not mean the U.S. should abandon its allies. It means recognizing that peace is not achieved through force, but through the careful orchestration of conditions. In the case of Israel and Iran, the U.S. could act as a silent architect of exhaustion, allowing the conflict to unfold until the costs of continuation outweigh the benefits. This would require a delicate balance: not withdrawing support entirely, but limiting it in ways that make Israel’s position more precarious. The goal is not to provoke war, but to make peace inevitable through the arithmetic of survival.
The art of peacemaking in such scenarios is not about heroism or diplomacy. It is about understanding that sometimes, peace is not a choice—it is a consequence. When the parties to a conflict refuse to negotiate, the role of external powers is not to force resolution, but to ensure that the burden of war is borne by those who refuse to yield. In this way, the U.S. can shape the outcome of the Israel-Iran conflict not through direct intervention, but through the strategic use of restraint, creating conditions where peace becomes the only viable path forward.
qwen3:14b-q4_K_M
US MOP strikes on Iranian Fordow nuclear site shows six separate craters, so even with six B-2s dropping twelve MOPs, with two in each hole, the entrance and exit sites, the penetration doesn’t go deep enough to reach the nuclear facility. Mission accomplished.
