US, Iran must act responsibly

Just when the world had begun to breathe a sigh of relief, the spectre of another devastating conflict has returned. The memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the United States and Iran to halt hostilities had raised hopes that diplomacy had finally prevailed over military confrontation. Negotiators from both sides were reportedly working towards a permanent agreement, financial markets responded positively, and oil prices began to retreat from their wartime highs. For a brief moment, the world believed that one of the most dangerous flashpoints in modern geopolitics might finally be cooling.
Those hopes have been shattered.
The renewed exchange of attacks last week has once again pushed the Middle East to the brink of a wider regional war. Beyond the immediate military implications, the latest escalation has reignited fears of a global economic slowdown, higher inflation and another humanitarian catastrophe. It serves as a stark reminder that in today's interconnected world, no conflict remains confined within national borders. A war between the US and Iran inevitably becomes the world's problem.
The most immediate casualty of renewed hostilities has been confidence in the global economy. During the height of the conflict, Brent crude oil prices surged dramatically, climbing from around $67 a barrel to nearly $113, as investors feared disruptions to supplies from the Gulf. Although prices began to ease after the ceasefire understanding was announced, they rose sharply again following the latest military exchanges, with Brent crude gaining nearly 5 per cent in a single trading session amid renewed concerns over regional stability. The sharp swings in energy markets underscore how vulnerable the global economy remains to geopolitical shocks.
The reason is simple. Nearly one-fifth of the world's seaborne oil trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway separating Iran from the Arabian Peninsula. Even the possibility that military action could disrupt shipping through this strategic passage is enough to send global oil prices soaring. Energy traders do not wait for supply disruptions to occur; they react to the risk itself. As a result, every missile launched and every military threat exchanged between Washington and Tehran reverberates through international markets within hours.
Higher oil prices are not merely an inconvenience for motorists. They affect almost every aspect of modern life. Fuel powers transportation, manufacturing, agriculture and electricity generation. When crude prices rise sharply, the cost of moving goods increases, airlines raise fares, shipping companies impose higher freight charges and factories face higher production costs. Those additional expenses are eventually passed on to consumers in the form of more expensive food, medicines, clothing and other essential commodities.
The consequences are particularly severe for developing economies. Countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and many African nations depend heavily on imported fuel while already struggling with inflation, foreign exchange shortages and mounting debt. Every increase in global oil prices widens trade deficits, puts pressure on national currencies and forces governments either to subsidise fuel at enormous fiscal cost or allow domestic prices to rise, further burdening ordinary citizens.
Bangladesh offers a telling example. As a net importer of petroleum products, the country remains highly vulnerable to volatility in global energy markets. Rising fuel prices increase transportation costs, raise electricity generation expenses and ultimately make food and essential goods more expensive. Export-oriented industries also face higher operating costs, reducing their competitiveness at a time when global demand is already slowing. What appears to be a distant geopolitical conflict therefore has direct consequences for millions of Bangladeshi households.
Wars invariably inflict their greatest suffering on civilians. Military targets may dominate headlines, but it is ordinary people who pay the highest price. Homes are destroyed, hospitals become overwhelmed, schools close, businesses collapse and families are displaced. Children lose access to education. Medical supplies become scarce. Entire communities live under the constant threat of airstrikes and missile attacks.
History offers painful reminders that wars are rarely as short or as limited as leaders initially anticipate. Once military retaliation begins, escalation often develops its own momentum. Miscalculations occur. Alliances become activated. Proxy groups enter the conflict. Diplomatic space narrows as public opinion hardens on both sides.
Neither the United States nor Iran can afford such an outcome.
The United States remains the world's most powerful military force, but decades of involvement in the Middle East have demonstrated that military superiority alone cannot deliver lasting peace. From Iraq to Afghanistan, overwhelming firepower has often failed to resolve complex political disputes. Sustainable peace requires diplomacy, compromise and long-term political engagement rather than perpetual military confrontation.
Iran, meanwhile, has shown remarkable resilience despite years of sanctions and economic isolation. Yet resilience does not eliminate vulnerability. Continued conflict further weakens its economy, discourages foreign investment, reduces employment opportunities and deepens the hardship already experienced by millions of ordinary Iranians. The country's long-term development cannot be secured through endless confrontation.
The international community also has much at stake.
The recently signed MoU demonstrated that dialogue remains possible despite profound differences. It represented an important acknowledgment by both sides that military confrontation cannot provide a sustainable solution. That diplomatic foundation should not be abandoned because of renewed tensions. Instead, it should be strengthened through continuous negotiations, confidence-building measures and credible mechanisms to prevent future military incidents.
Compromise will inevitably be required.
Neither Washington nor Tehran is likely to achieve every objective it seeks. That is the nature of diplomacy. Successful negotiations are rarely about absolute victories. They are about finding practical solutions that serve the broader interests of peace and stability.
The United States may need to recognise that long-term regional security cannot be achieved solely through military pressure or economic sanctions. Iran, for its part, must reassure the international community that its regional activities will contribute to stability rather than further escalation. Both governments should place the welfare of their citizens above political symbolism or strategic posturing.
Responsible leadership is not demonstrated by refusing to make concessions. It is demonstrated by possessing the courage to pursue peace even when compromise carries domestic political costs.
The United Nations, regional powers and influential international partners must also intensify diplomatic efforts. They should encourage sustained negotiations rather than merely reacting after violence has erupted. Preventive diplomacy is invariably less costly than post-conflict reconstruction.
Time is running short.
Every additional day of military confrontation increases the possibility of a catastrophic miscalculation. A single mistake, an unintended strike or an escalation involving regional allies could rapidly transform a bilateral conflict into a broader regional war with unpredictable global consequences. Once such a conflict expands, diplomatic options become significantly more difficult.
The stakes extend far beyond Washington and Tehran. Billions of people depend upon stable energy markets, secure international shipping lanes and a peaceful Middle East. Farmers, factory workers, transport operators, exporters, students and families across the world all bear the economic consequences of decisions made thousands of miles away.
The world has witnessed enough destruction. It has seen too many conflicts that promised swift victories but instead produced decades of instability, displacement and economic hardship. Humanity cannot afford another avoidable war.
This is not the time for ego, political grandstanding or displays of military strength. It is a moment that demands wisdom, restraint and statesmanship. The United States and Iran must return to meaningful negotiations with sincerity and urgency. They should honour the spirit of the understanding they had already reached and demonstrate that diplomacy remains stronger than warfare.
Peace may require difficult compromises from both sides. But compromise is not a sign of weakness; it is the highest expression of responsible leadership. If Washington and Tehran truly seek security and prosperity for their peoples, they must choose dialogue over destruction.
Millions of lives -- and the stability of the global economy -- depend on that choice.

mirmostafiz@yahoo.com