The Iran Cease-Fire Was Doomed to Fail: Why Transactionalism Won’t Deliver Peace in the Middle East

Foreign Affairs | Neil Quilliam and Sanam Vakil

The June 2026 memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran has collapsed, reigniting direct missile and drone strikes and shutting down commercial shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. This breakdown threatens to trigger a wider regional escalation as the Houthis impose a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia.

This failure stems from a flawed reliance on transactional diplomacy, which prioritises short-term, standalone bargains over the institutional frameworks and difficult political compromises needed to resolve deep-seated security dilemmas. Similar to the geopolitical dynamics preceding World War I, modern leaders like Donald Trump have pursued narrow, personalized deals that bypass long-term strategy and leave core conflicts unresolved. Consequently, temporary cease-fires in Gaza and bilateral agreements in the Gulf have merely allowed adversaries to reconstitute their forces, leaving the Middle East highly vulnerable to cascading, interconnected conflicts that disrupt the global economy and energy markets.

Comment

The collapse of the US-Iran memorandum exposes the fragility of security frameworks built on transactional normalisation rather than formal, integrated defence treaties. By prioritising bilateral trade and diplomatic recognition in agreements like the Abraham Accords, participating states inadvertently decoupled regional integration from the resolution of core territorial disputes. This structural decoupling leaves partners vulnerable to asymmetric retaliation from non-state actors like the Houthis, who exploit the lack of collective defence guarantees to disrupt maritime chokepoints. Consequently, these loose Middle Eastern alignments fail to project credible deterrence against Tehran, as regional adversaries exploit the absence of a unified, US-backed air and missile defence command.

To read in details click here