To achieve real peace for our time, Iran must prepare for war

Now that the war in the Middle East appears to be in limbo, except for the incessant fighting in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, the Latin phrase Igitur qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum (therefore, let him who desires peace prepare for war), ascribed to the military theorist Vegetius, seems more relevant than ever.

While Trump alternates between fantasising about talks with Iran and swearing to preserve the US naval blockade at the behest of the Gulf states, Iran has stood by its demands as a precondition for resuming peace talks and normalising the flow of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. These are seven in number. The first four – the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen; the lifting of the US naval blockade of the Strait; the rescission of all oil and economic sanctions; and the release of up to $50 billion in frozen assets – are concessions that the US government may be persuaded to accept in lieu of some quid pro quo. But the last three, focused on the payment of war reparations, a significant reduction in the US military presence in the region, and a promise to renounce hostile policies towards Iran and end cooperation with its opponents, are unlikely to be accepted in whole or in part by the Trump administration.

Also Read: US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent moves to military base amid Iranian threats to his safety: Report


This is not difficult to fathom. First, war reparations directly linked to the immediate destruction of civil and energy utilities have been estimated by Iran at $270 billion. Simultaneously, Iran has demanded $300 billion in legal damages linked to the conflict. Taken together, this amounts to more than half of the 2026 US defence budget, a figure already viewed as inadequate to meet the needs of urgent US missile and armaments replenishment. Second, any reduction in US bases in the Middle East would send the same signal to America’s regional allies as Rome’s exit from Western Europe did to its erstwhile colonies: form new alliances to defend yourself or submit to a new authority. And while alliances are already being explored and forged, America’s irreversible exit will likely threaten the pre-eminence of the petrodollar, whose supremacy has been the catalyst of American exceptionalism and power. Finally, any demand for the US to defund or abjure nations with inimical intentions towards Iran is bound to be anathema because of Israel’s territorial and hegemonic ambitions in West Asia.

Iran is well aware of this but is unwilling to revisit its terms. Nor should it.

It is the injured party. On two occasions, it has been the unwitting gull of duplicitous American negotiations in which it suffered ferocious military onslaughts that resulted in leadership assassinations, enormous civilian casualties and widespread infrastructural damage. Today, on account of a successful defensive war in which it displayed both determination and sagacity, it holds all the cards. Trump’s admission that he is not contemplating any further military intervention in Iran, no doubt motivated by the massive Republican defeat in the midterms, may also be a confession that he is desperate for an off-ramp in which he will come off better than expected.

But Iran is unlikely to be a signatory to any peace treaty that does not guarantee its absolute sovereignty and collective security. To attain the former, Iran will need to be free from the threat of economic sanctions or build its economic development roadmap independently after forcing the issue. To achieve the latter, Iran will need to either win significant concessions from the US and its allies with regard to non-aggression or neutralise the threat in its vicinity.

Also Read: Trump's Iran war may be 'militarily' over, but economic siege still haunts

Eventually, what limits Iran’s choices is Israel. Had it been only the GCC nations, or had the United States held its Arab allies in the same esteem as Israel, things would not have come to this pass. With some surveys suggesting that ~70% of the Israeli population approve of the genocide in Gaza, and a similar proportion identifying with Zionism’s expansionist agenda – one of the core threats to which is Iran – it is hard to set any store by an Israeli ceasefire. Moreover, since some estimates suggest that AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) has compromised 353 of the 535 members of Congress through campaign donations in lieu of support, it is likely that any concerted move, even by the Democratic Party, which now holds a majority of seats in Congress, to stop the war will only provide a much-needed respite for Israel, a nation whose actions have made it more isolated and vulnerable.

Furthermore, the passage of the US National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in July, which allows America and Israel to cooperate on defence and intelligence initiatives – regardless of Trump’s claim that the US will no longer fund Israel’s military – in areas such as AI, counter-drone systems and missile technology, complicates matters. It is almost certain that even if the US abandons its many irreparably damaged sites in the Middle East, it will retreat only as far as Israel, where the US Central Command (CENTCOM) will set up shop to threaten and harass any nation that poses a real or imaginary danger to Israel.

This is why Iran must prepare for war. And not just as a deterrent. The hawks in Washington, along with Israel’s own unstable post-electoral political condition, in which – from the lens of Zionism, a fascist ideology that must not be conflated with Judaism – there appears to be no difference between Netanyahu and Eisenkot, could provide the impetus to maintain the status quo. This need not mean the immediate recommencement of hostilities, but if it comes to that, Iran must deliver the kind of blow that economically debilitates the United States and permanently neutralises Israel’s belligerence. A more acceptable solution, of course, would be to get BRICS, of which Iran is a member, to negotiate and enforce a permanent settlement with the US to ensure the same result vis-à-vis Israel. But this may be years in the making and will require a younger, less cynical congressional generation to cast off the prejudices of the past and negotiate with meaningful intent.

Ultimately, any agreement that does not definitively end the present conflict will only be a form of appeasement that will assure the initiation or resumption of other regional eruptions in the future. Iran, in particular, and the world in general, should not be subjected to the uncertainties and privations that this unconscionable war has brought in its wake ever again. Perhaps the readiness for, and willingness to prosecute, war is indeed the best hope for peace.