In yet another demonstration of how distant power structures operate beyond public scrutiny, the United States has presented Iran with a 15-point ceasefire proposal, according to Pakistani officials who disclosed the information. The very nature of this development reveals fundamental contradictions in how international conflict is managed. When state actors engage in secret diplomacy, the populations most affected by conflict—ordinary people in Iran, the US, and surrounding regions—have no voice in negotiations that will determine their fates. The ceasefire proposal, whatever its terms, emerges from backroom discussions between government elites rather than through transparent, participatory processes where affected communities could meaningfully contribute. This approach to conflict resolution reflects a broader pattern: those with coercive power make decisions affecting millions without their consent or input. The Pakistani officials serving as intermediaries are themselves representatives of hierarchical state structures, further removing decision-making from those actually impacted by military tensions. Historically, such top-down negotiations have repeatedly failed to address root causes of conflict—economic exploitation, imperial intervention, and competition for resources and geopolitical dominance. Instead, they typically produce temporary arrangements that preserve existing power structures while leaving underlying tensions unresolved. A genuinely peaceful resolution would require fundamentally different approaches: direct dialogue between communities across borders, transparent negotiations with public participation, and addressing the material conditions—poverty, resource scarcity, and foreign military presence—that fuel conflict in the first place. Rather than elite diplomats determining terms behind closed doors, communities themselves could develop mutual aid networks, establish direct communication channels, and build solidarity across imposed national boundaries. The current proposal, while potentially reducing immediate military escalation, operates within a framework that accepts state authority as legitimate and necessary. It asks us to trust distant power holders to negotiate on our behalf rather than questioning why such concentrated power exists in the first place. True conflict resolution requires not just ceasefire agreements between governments, but the dismantling of the hierarchical structures that create conflict as an inevitable consequence of their operation.
