The brief memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran was seen by many serious observers of the West Asia conundrum as the first sign that reason had finally prevailed over military adventurism. Many others, however, were never quite convinced. Not because diplomacy is futile, but because diplomacy cannot succeed when it merely postpones the central disagreement instead of resolving it.

The agreement read less like a settlement than a carefully choreographed balancing act in which both sides hoped the other would blink first. As it has now turned out, neither did.

US President Donald Trump's announcement that the understanding is effectively over merely confirms what had become increasingly apparent over the past few weeks. The ceasefire did not collapse because one side suddenly became unreasonable. It collapsed because it rested upon two objectives that were fundamentally irreconcilable.

Also Read: Child killers: From Herod to Hitler and Netanyahu

Washington continues to insist that Iran must permanently surrender its nuclear ambitions and Tehran continues to regard those very ambitions as the ultimate guarantee of its survival. Between those two positions there was always very little room for compromise.

Yet something far more interesting has happened during these months of conflict. When the war began, almost every discussion centred around military capability. Comparisons were drawn between American firepower and Iranian vulnerability, between Israel's technological superiority and Iran's economic fragility. Four months later, the conversation has shifted entirely.

The issue is no longer military superiority, but it is strategic leverage. Those are not the same thing. History is filled with examples of relatively weaker........

© Mathrubhumi English