As the Iran war drags into late March 2026, discussions of a potential ceasefire are growing louder. The United States, Iran, and Israel are all involved, and both sides are presenting demands. The official reporting shows the U.S. has submitted plans addressing security, de-escalation, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran’s reported demands center on reparations, security guarantees, and stopping further attacks. (reuters.com, wsj.com)
But if the U.S. truly wants a meaningful ceasefire—a pause that could prevent further escalation—there needs to be a more radical conversation about its own role in the region. Beyond the obvious military involvement alongside Israel, the United States has long maintained deep financial and strategic support for Israel. That relationship has shaped regional dynamics for decades and is directly tied to ongoing tensions.
From my perspective, a credible ceasefire condition should not just involve halting attacks or pursuing temporary de-escalation. It should involve structural changes that address the root drivers of conflict. First, the U.S. should fully divest from Israel—not partially, not symbolically, but entirely. Military aid, financial support, and strategic alignment should end. But that alone is not enough. For a real signal that the U.S. is stepping back and taking peace seriously, sanctions should also be placed on Israel, particularly if the country continues policies that perpetuate conflict in the region.
Why sanctions? Because divestment alone may not prevent Israel from continuing aggressive policies. Financial and diplomatic pressure creates leverage. It forces Israel—and, by extension, the U.S.—to reassess actions that escalate conflict, especially in a context where war with Iran has already drawn in multiple actors and destabilized the region. Without tangible consequences, the risk is that divestment becomes merely symbolic, and tensions continue to spiral.
Critics will call this idea extreme. They will argue that it destabilizes a key U.S. ally and could have unpredictable consequences. That is true. But the alternative is a continuation of the status quo: endless escalation, repeated strikes, retaliations, and the widening of a war that has already dragged multiple countries into its orbit. A ceasefire without structural accountability risks being nothing more than a temporary pause before the fighting resumes.
This approach also aligns with the principle of fairness in negotiations. If Iran is being asked to accept constraints, to halt military operations, and to negotiate under duress, the U.S. and its allies should also be willing to take steps that reduce the structural causes of conflict. That means reevaluating decades of military aid and strategic alignment that have contributed to the current crisis.
Implementing divestment and sanctions would undoubtedly be controversial, but in a war that has already shown the potential for regional escalation and global repercussions, it may be the only way to signal a real commitment to peace. Incremental measures, half-measures, or symbolic gestures are unlikely to break the cycle of violence and retaliation that has defined this conflict so far.
It is also worth noting that the United States has already pushed away or strained relationships with other allies during this time. Divesting from Israel, while difficult and controversial, would be consistent with a broader reorientation of foreign policy, emphasizing accountability, restraint, and de-escalation.
Ultimately, a meaningful ceasefire requires confronting the uncomfortable truths about who benefits from escalation, who drives the conflict, and who has the power to stop it. For the United States, that means acknowledging its own role, both direct and indirect, and being willing to make serious, consequential moves to reduce its participation.
A ceasefire without accountability is not peace—it’s just a pause. Divestment and sanctions may sound extreme, but in the context of a war spiraling out of control, they may be precisely what is necessary to finally change the calculus and open the door to genuine de-escalation.