After the Guns: Counting the Cost of a Preventable and Unnecessary War

International Relations

By Vijay Makhan

The sound of the battling guns has faded and we applaud that. However, the damage will endure. From weakened multilateral institutions and disrupted energy markets to the hardships borne by vulnerable states such as Mauritius, the true cost of this conflict has extended far beyond the Middle East.

From the very outset of this conflict, I argued that diplomacy — not military force — offered the only sustainable path to peace. I warned of the fragility of ceasefires, the vulnerability of maritime chokepoints, the exposure of small states, and the dangers of a widening confrontation.

After nearly four months of conflict, punctuated by threats, ultimatums, military strikes, retaliatory actions, and repeated announcements of imminent peace, the Presidents of the two warring nations remotely signed a 14-point Memorandum. President Trump is seen proudly putting his signature on the document last night in the sumptuous surroundings of the castle at Versailles, the very venue where, after the war in 1919, leaders gathered to redraw the contours of the new world. it is welcome news. The question now is not who won the war but rather what the world has lost because this war was fought in the first place. Indeed, the question is what will remain after the guns fall silent.

For this conflict has left behind a legacy that extends far beyond the US, Iran, Israel, or even the wider Middle East. It has exposed profound weaknesses in the international system.

At the very outset, military action was unleashed without any meaningful role for the United Nations. The institution found itself largely relegated to the sidelines. Yet, chapter VII of the UN Charter tasks the Security Council specifically with the responsibility to maintain international peace and security. And now, so many months later, as discussions turn toward a possible settlement, the same institution remains conspicuously absent from the centre of the process, except that the 14th point of the signed Memorandum requires its reformulation in the form of a binding UN Security Council resolution. Great!

This reality should not be lost on us. Indeed, it should concern us all. For, if major conflicts can be initiated outside established multilateral frameworks and subsequently resolved through ad hoc arrangements among the principal actors, then the authority of the international system itself is diminished. The UN should not be diminished to a rubber stamp status!

In previous writings, I posed the question of whether multilateralism was failing and whether the principle of “might is right” was gradually replacing the rule of law. This conflict has done little to reassure those who harbour such concerns.

The economic consequences have been equally sobering. Energy markets have been shaken. Shipping routes have been under pressure. Insurance costs have risen. Supply chains have been disrupted. The effects travelled from the Strait of Hormuz across the Indian Ocean and beyond.

For vulnerable economies and small island developing states, the consequences were immediate and tangible. Mauritius did not start this war. Nor did so many other countries now paying part of its cost. Households face higher energy prices. Businesses confront greater uncertainty. Governments are being forced once again to absorb external shocks over which they exercised no influence. And the people are grumbling.

One of the most enduring injustices of contemporary conflicts remains the fact that those least responsible often bear a disproportionate share of the burden.

The human consequences must not be forgotten. As global attention shifted from one crisis to another, suffering in Gaza continued unabated. Violence in southern Lebanon persisted. Communities across the region endured loss, displacement and insecurity.

The headlines changed. The human cost, however, remained.

And, what of the grand declarations that accompanied the opening stages of the conflict? Predictions of rapid victory. Assertions of decisive outcomes. References to “obliteration” and overwhelming force. Nearly four months later, the conflict appears to be concluding not through military triumph, but through negotiation.

History offers the recurring lesson that wars may alter realities on the ground, but durable peace is rarely imposed by force alone. It is ultimately constructed through dialogue, compromise and political will.

That lesson deserves renewed attention. For the broader challenge remains. Trust has been weakened. Institutions have been sidelined. Regional tensions persist. Economic scars will take time to heal.

The restoration of stability will require more than a ceasefire. It will require a renewed commitment to diplomacy, a strengthening of multilateral institutions, and a recognition that security cannot be sustained indefinitely through coercion alone. So, the next 60 days after the signature will be very crucial. All sides will need to display a high sense of restraint, with cards up and no daggers behind the back. Special heed needs to be paid to ensure that Lebanon doesn’t become a stumbling block.

For small states such as Mauritius, the lesson is equally clear. Events taking place thousands of kilometres away can have immediate consequences at home. Distance no longer guarantees protection. In an interconnected world, exposure has become a defining feature of vulnerability.

As this conflict moves toward a conclusion, there will undoubtedly be claims of success from all sides. Such claims are to be expected. But perhaps the most important task is not to identify who prevailed. It is to understand what was lost. For, while wars eventually end, the damage they inflict upon institutions, economies, and human lives often endures long after the final communiqué is signed.

The guns may have fallen silent.

But the task of rebuilding trust, stability and international legitimacy is only the beginning. And this, in itself, is a mammoth undertaking.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 19 June 2026