The battle for the Middle East: Can a political decision bring peace to the region? – Dailynewsegypt
In less than six hours, the dynamics of the Middle East conflict underwent a significant transformation. Israel executed a dual strike against the leaders of the two largest fronts within the so-called “Unit of Arenas,” which Iran believes it has imposed upon Tel Aviv. The first target was Fouad Shukr, the Chief of Staff of Hezbollah forces in the southern suburbs of Beirut. Shortly after that, Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the political bureau of Hamas, was targeted in Tehran. His assassination posed considerable embarrassment and a severe blow to the prestige of the Islamic Republic.
The assassination of Haniyeh while he was visiting Tehran to attend the inauguration of the new Iranian president constitutes a severe violation of Iran’s sovereignty and undermines any claims regarding the republic’s ability to safeguard its internal security. Furthermore, the newly elected president, Masoud Beizikian, affiliated with the reformist movement, now finds himself in an extremely challenging position. He had prioritized improving relations with the West and Washington, but this assassination will likely compel him to revise those priorities. This aligns with Israel’s interests, as they believe that enhancing relations will inevitably lead to the lifting of sanctions and the acceleration of Iran’s nuclear programme.
The two strikes revealed Israel’s ability to target whoever it wants, confirming that it is the only party that can violate the agreed-upon rules of engagement. Other parties must deal with the consequences of this violation without exceeding those rules. This is not the first breach of Iranian security and likely won’t be the last. There have been a series of assassinations of Iranian scientists, the theft of Iranian nuclear archives displayed by Benjamin Netanyahu, and a scandal involving Mossad elements kidnapping Iranian intelligence leaders in Tehran, interrogating them, filming them, and sharing them on social media.
Before the recent assassinations, the war in Gaza was approaching its first year with no hope of containment. Now, the situation has become even more complex and obscure. The justifications for expanding the war have outnumbered the reasons for halting it, putting the entire region at risk of sliding into a regional conflict.
Iran is determined to push forward its agenda in the region through the “Axis of Resistance,” managed by its militias in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq, along with full coordination with Islamic resistance elements in Gaza. Tehran deliberately showcases this coordination politically and in the media, as evident in the recent speech by Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, which sometimes resonated with the speech of Ansar Allah leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi. This makes it difficult to ignore the link between the Israeli army’s bombing of Hodeidah and its simultaneous bombing of Hezbollah arms depots in southern Lebanon.
But do these fronts have a real impact on the course of events in the region? This question requires a thorough chronological review. The Middle East has witnessed unprecedented regional and international wars and conflicts since the end of World War II, starting with the Suez War in 1956, the Arab-Israeli wars, the war in Lebanon, and the conflict in Yemen, which coincided with the Iran-Iraq war. This was followed by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the American invasion of Iraq, paving the way for what is called fourth and fifth-generation wars, including the Arab Spring revolutions in Libya and Syria, and recently, the conflict in Sudan.
This indicates that the situation before the term “unit of squares” was not optimistic; rather, it can be asserted that the magnitude of conflicts and regional divisions has given rise to such terminology to address the current circumstances per the interests and agendas of the state. The aforementioned does not justify the acceptance of the Iranian agenda, which is not innocent and has further obscured the regional landscape. However, the reality is more complex than it appears, and those who reduce it to the events of October 7th are not being fair to the nature of the situation and are overlooking the true causes of this intricate crisis.
However, if we leave aside what has been mentioned before, the Iranian arms will not remain dependent on what Tehran dictates to them along the line, and soon the emerging interests of some of those arms may intersect with the interests of the main funder and may even collide. This is one of the hellish equations of war in the region that cannot be read outside its strong connection to the past conflicts of the region and its future, and soon outside the Palestinian and Israeli transformations and at the level of the American political scene, especially after President Joe Biden’s decision not to run for a second term and its impact on the future of the Middle East.
After nine months of the bloodiest war in the Gaza Strip, the emerging results indicate that Hamas’ conflict with Israel did not cancel its conflict with the Palestinian Authority. Historically and in principle, both parties can be held responsible for this conflict. At present, Hamas bears the responsibility for the continuation of Palestinian division, as it is the main Palestinian party engaged in the conflict in Gaza. While Israel is responsible for the stream of Palestinian bloodshed, Hamas’ political and moral responsibility towards the Palestinian cause requires finding political solutions to end the war. Its goal in negotiations should be the political survival of Palestinians, not just its survival, in addition to preserving their lives. However, its political and moral accountability is linked to the cost of its survival in the “day after” the war, as its continuation represents not only a defeat for Israel but also for the Palestinian Authority. This does not imply that Hamas is solely responsible for hindering negotiations or that Israel is adamant about stopping the ceasefire. The issue is not as straightforward as that, but rather that Hamas should be more concerned than anyone else, whether Israel or any regional power involved in the conflict, with stopping the war if necessary. Even if it requires greater concessions, it is not in front of Israel, but in front of the Palestinians, by opening the way to cancel the Palestinian division and unify the Palestinian political vision in a way that enables Palestinians to support their cause regionally and internationally. This is a central point in all conflicts in the Middle East, as its solution is primarily based on a political decision rather than a military one.
Dr. Hatem Sadek- Professor at Helwan University