One month of bloodshed confirms a simple truth: Military means do not yield genuine security. The people of the region need stability and development, not another prolonged conflict. Allowing the situation to deteriorate further risks pushing the Middle East into deeper quagmire.

BEIJING, March 28 (Xinhua) -- One month into the U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iran, the Middle East is once again caught in a cycle of escalating violence. Civilian casualties are mounting, regional tensions are intensifying, and the risk of a wider war grows by the day. The reality is increasingly evident: this war is not resolving problems, but multiplying them.

This war did not have to happen. There were still diplomatic options before the strikes began, but they were set aside by Washington. Experience shows that such actions rarely bring order. More often, they deepen divisions and make the situation worse.

More importantly, the way this conflict has unfolded raises serious questions about international norms. Military action taken without United Nations Security Council authorization undermines the foundation of the UN Charter. When such actions are justified in the name of urgency or self-defense, the line between rule and exception becomes blurred.

On the ground, the impact is immediate. The Middle East is once again facing rising violence, growing civilian casualties and the risk of wider conflict. Rather than stabilizing the situation, the strikes have added new uncertainty to an already fragile region.

Washington always argues that force can restore deterrence and security. But recent history suggests otherwise. Military interventions framed as preventive or stabilizing have often produced the opposite effect -- prolonging conflicts, deepening divisions and leaving lasting instability.

One month of bloodshed confirms a simple truth: Military means do not yield genuine security. The people of the region need stability and development, not another prolonged conflict. Allowing the situation to deteriorate further risks pushing the Middle East into deeper quagmire.

A ceasefire is therefore not a matter of choice, but an urgent necessity. The longer the fighting continues, the harder it becomes to contain. All parties should act to halt hostilities and create space for dialogue before the window for de-escalation closes.

A ceasefire, however, is merely the first step. Dialogue is the sole route out. Complex differences must ultimately be addressed through political means. Military force may deliver temporary gains, but it cannot resolve underlying differences. Dialogue, however difficult, remains the only viable path toward lasting stability.

At the same time, the international community must firmly reject unilateralism and power politics and jointly uphold fairness and justice. The foundation of international order lies in the international law, not in the law of the jungle. Major countries bear responsibilities, not privileges to act with impunity. If the notion that "might makes right" is allowed to prevail, the world risks sliding back into a dangerous era of brute force, a catastrophic setback for civilization.

The choice is stark: Continue down a path of escalation with no clear end, or press the "stop button" and return to reason. To end the loss of innocent life, the world must make the latter a reality.