Editorial
Seasoned observers of global affairs know one enduring truth: however tangled events appear in the moment, clarity eventually surfaces. It happened with Iraq in 2003, when the WMD justification for war collapsed spectacularly. History, it seems, is repeating itself with Iran in 2026.
The parallels are striking, but the difference is damning. With Iraq, doubts emerged slowly, over years. With Iran, evidence of a missed diplomatic solution surfaced almost immediately. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had signalled to American negotiators a willingness to make substantial concessions on Tehran’s nuclear programme. On February 28, Oman’s Foreign Minister described negotiations as a “major breakthrough,” confirming Iran had agreed not to stockpile enriched uranium. He expressed confidence that remaining issues could be resolved within months. On that very same day, US and Israeli strikes began.
Araghchi later confirmed on CBS News that just 48 hours before the attacks, Iran had offered to dilute its 60 per cent enriched uranium — a significant concession demonstrating it neither sought nor intended nuclear weapons. Britain’s National Security Adviser, who attended the final round of talks, similarly believed a deal was within reach. A follow-up meeting scheduled in Vienna never took place. The bombs had already fallen.
This raises a question that cannot be avoided: why was a devastating war imposed when Iran’s leadership had effectively offered to surrender the very justification used to launch it? A deal would have been a diplomatic triumph. Instead, we have a war.
Iran has absorbed early setbacks but appears to be steadying itself, exerting calculated pressure through the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere. Yet resilience on the battlefield must eventually give way to judgement at the negotiating table.
Wars are not won solely by firepower. They are ultimately judged by the wisdom shown in ending them.
