If the end of the Iran war results from negotiation, mutual compromise and economic considerations, it would indeed strengthen the argument that the 21st Century rewards pragmatism more than ideological absolutism. The US possesses great military power, and Iran has greater ideological commitment and strategic resilience. Yet, both sides calculated that a compromise better served their interests than pursuing maximalist goals that threatened the international economy. Is pragmatism finally overcoming ideology as the preferred tool of statecraft? For an answer, let's discuss four important aspects: 1) Effects of the Iran War on global ideology; 2) Abraham Accords; 3) Ideological change and the concept of End of History; and 4) India-Pakistan ideological differences.

The Iran War ending on a compromise suggests that more and more states in the future may avoid policies framed as ideological projects and instead justify them in terms of national interests, economic growth, security, stability and scientific and technological advancement. In the 21st Century, the global ideological space is increasingly constrained by economic and technological realities. It is now a space in which practising ideological silence and furthering national interests is more rewarding. The end of the Iran War is an isolated example. Similar patterns can be observed in the Abraham Accords.

The Abraham Accords are perhaps one of the clearest examples of how the global ideological map is being fragmented and how states are preferring ideological silence and how state ideologies are becoming subordinate to pragmatism. Before the Accords, much of the Arab world's........

© The Express Tribune