The following is an edited transcript of the speech by Ambassador Prof. Dr. Manuel Hassassian to Panel One of the April 6, 2026 EIR Emergency Roundtable event, “A Dialogue of Civilizations: Is There Still Time To Prevent the War Against Iran from Escalating into a Global Nuclear Conflict?” Prof. Dr. Hassassian is a former ambassador from the Palestinian Authority to the UK, Hungary, and Denmark. Subheads have been added. The video is available here.

Thank you for inviting me. And I’m always privileged to be with the Schiller Institute. And I think this symposium is a very important and critical symposium, where minds, intellectuals should meet to find plausible solutions to this intricate and complex problem. And since the time restraint is ten minutes, I will try as much as possible to present certain kinds of prognosis to this conflict, and just start by asking the question, escalation or diplomacy?

It is one of the most critical dilemmas in contemporary international relations. As the geopolitical tensions intensify, the choice between military confrontation and negotiated settlement will determine not only regional stability, but the survival of global security. We have to understand this balance is essential to preventing catastrophic outcomes and sustaining peace.

The war stands at a precarious stalemate, marked by periodic escalation but not decisive breakthrough. Military operations continue to impose significant costs on all sides, while strategic deterrence has so far prevented a wider regional war or, of course, nuclear confrontation. The balance remains fragile on all sides. External powers are engaged in containment rather than settlement and conflict resolution. So, there is no clear horizon within this perspective. The situation remains volatile, suspended between escalation and the self-delusive path to de-escalation.

I think it is important to note that this war is not occurring in isolation from the repercussions and ramifications in the context of global security, in the context of world trade relations, in the context of instability and insecurity. The Iran war can be stopped, but the window today is very narrow, very fragile, and time-sensitive. While nuclear escalation is not inevitable, from a strategic standpoint, nuclear war remains a low probability outcome, even under current escalation and tension. Neither side has a clear incentive to cross the nuclear threshold, because the consequences, the repercussions, would be catastrophic globally. There have been restraints from heavy bombardment of nuclear facilities, as we can see so far, but the risk will be there. Escalation dynamics are accelerating; retaliation and counter-retaliation are going on. Right now, the situation hinges on basically urgent diplomatic efforts, like active mediation, moderated by Pakistan, Egypt, and Türkiye, and it’s pushing for a 45-day, as you know, ceasefire framework.

Could There Be Nuclear Escalation?

What would trigger nuclear escalation? I think regime survival in Iran being directly threatened, massive destruction of nuclear infrastructure leading to use it or lose it, and breakdown of command-and-control clarity. The best-case scenario will be controlled de-escalation. The trajectory of this will be mediated negotiations, back-channel negotiations reopened between the United States and Iran. Military activity then drops to low-intensity proxy engagements, and maritime security, like the Strait of Hormuz, stabilizes.

However, the strategic logic would be that all actors recognize mutual vulnerability and shift from escalation to damage limitation. The regional outcome: no regime collapse in Iran, Israel holds [back on] deep strikes, the Gulf states push for regional security framework discussions, and then we have de facto restoration of deterrence equilibrium. The trajectory here continues to head for strikes, direct or via proxies. No full ceasefire, but informal red lines, I would say, emerge. Cyber, maritime, and limited missile exchange will continue. China and Russia will increase their strenuous diplomatic efforts, and of course, their economic involvement will be much more visible. The regional outcome of all this? There will be a gradual shift towards a multipolar security order. It’s no longer going to be controlled by the unipolar power once called the Pax Americana. The U.S. influence basically becomes more contested and more challenged by the emergence of big powers—China, Russia, India.

Iran demonstrates and will continue to demonstrate resilience under this pressure. However, Israel maintains tactical superiority, but there will never be strategic resolutions. The worst-case scenario is that regional war with nuclear risk will be there. But direct confrontation, strikes expanding to critical infrastructure, and possibly nuclear facilities–there will be a lack of harmony in terms of connection.

However, the last point in this worst-case scenario is that the Hormuz Strait closure will create a global economic shock. As we can see, this strait basically is responsible for 20% of world oil passing through it. So, 20% of the oil provision is through the Strait of Hormuz, which could play a very significant role in terms of spiraling inflation, global trade insecurities, and what have you.

Negotiation and Economic Cooperation

So, after trying to basically outline the major impact of this war, and the reasons for this war to take place, I think the only reasonable outcome that should be favorable to everyone is peaceful negotiations and economic cooperation and development. And of course, you know, we have been time and again talking about the Oasis Plan and how it could contribute basically to the stabilization of the international order and system; try to create incentives for economic development and production; try to foster certain kinds of connections between entities in the global economy to work together towards flourishing and booming, and trying to fight the scarcities of water, the scarcity of oil in the coming 20 years, trying to overcome the challenges of food shortages and what have you.

So, the Oasis Plan can help in the de-escalation process by shifting incentives from zero-sum conflict or confrontation to shared economic gains through large-scale regional projects, especially in the fields of water, energy, and infrastructural development. By improving livelihoods and fostering cooperation between nations, we can create an ambience of total cooperation and total dependency on each other in the process of trying to develop economically, socially, culturally, and politically. It actually builds practical foundations for diplomacy and long-term peace.

We hope that this war will end very soon, and we hope that the outcome in ending this war will be through negotiations, through the settlement of differences, and through taking into consideration economic and political stability that will resonate basically to every single nation in the world, and try to overcome the formidable challenges of the environment and the challenges of the natural disasters and what have you. Through economic cooperation, and through political dialogue, and through conflict resolution, human beings could reach agreements to save humanity, and to save the international humanitarian laws, and try basically to put the new social and political order into perspective.

We are living in a very chaotic world today, and that chaos has been the result of the control by a new unipolar power, which is the United States of America. Since its advent as the unipolar power with the crumbling of the Soviet Union, we have seen the shift from the balance of power into a unipolar power. And that triggered regional conflicts, instability, and insecurity.

A New Era for Peace and Development

Now, we wish that this Iran war, which is unfortunate, with the heavy risks and the casualties that we have seen, and the destruction that we are seeing on television, will be the opening of an era of harmony and conciliation, an era with a multipolar system, an era with a basket of currencies, including the petro U.S. dollars, in an era of total cooperation rather than discordance; an era that will really try to solve the so long unsolved problem, which is the Palestinian problem. We believe that this could be, from an optimistic perspective of course, the opening for a new era for peace and development. And I always say that there will never be peace and development and security in the Middle East without the Palestinians achieving the right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent Palestinian state.

I think one of the repercussions of this war is that the visibility of the Palestinian issue will come to the fore, and that, in itself, basically will reduce tensions and chaos and will bring all the parties together—the Arab world, the European, Southwest Asia, Asia, and what have you—into perspective, by trying more or less to foster good economic trade relationships, and that, in itself, basically will provide a secure ambience globally.

Thank you very much.