There is a saying in politics: it is easy to start a war, but difficult to end it. This is precisely the trap that Israel and the United States fell into during their war against Iran. US President Donald Trump considered himself victorious, the (new) leaders of Iran claimed they had won, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu linked victory to the collapse of the Iranian regime.
Despite these contradictions, there is an undeniable fact that the war is on track to completely alter the map of the entire Middle East. Post-war Iran is no longer the same as it was before; its militias have become less effective, and this shift has forced it to transition from the theory of forward defense to direct attack. With the adoption of the attack theory, the war between Israel and Iran has become a direct conflict and an existential battle in which surrender or retreat is impossible. With Trump in power and Netanyahu remaining in government following the Israeli elections, escalation has become inevitable as long as the parties to the conflict do not back down or compromise.
This stubbornness closes the door to diplomacy and triggers escalation, driven by the conviction that the opposing side will back down. Under this belief, war becomes inevitable, opening up the entire region to major transformations.
There are indicators of these changes at both the regional and international levels. Regionally, there is a conviction among regional countries, which have no stake in this confrontation that will take place on their soil, that they will suffer major damage. This is because they were not contemplating confrontation in the first place, bear no hostility, and harbor no such ambitions; rather, the bulk of their focus is on developing their infrastructure and strengthening neighborly relations with Iran.
Since they face Iranian strikes aimed at confusing the United States, threatening the regional economy, and consequently the global one, regional countries have begun mapping out a new reality for the area. This strategy aims to construct a formidable wall against any attacks targeting them, while simultaneously activating diplomacy and mediation to alleviate the severity of the destructive war.
This approach is embodied in alliances, some of which were formed before the war and others after it. The pre-war Abraham Accords have been further strengthened, with their parties increasingly convinced that their choice was correct. On the other hand, the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement has emerged, through which the signatories (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye) have pledged to defend the territory of any country subjected to aggression. There are also expectations that Egypt, and perhaps other Islamic nations, may join the agreement.
The purpose of these alliances is not offensive but defensive, sending a clear message to the aggressor that it will not be able to isolate any single country, but will instead face alliances of nations possessing significant military, diplomatic, and economic weight. In this way, the aggressor will be forced to reconsider its calculations and expectations, even if it is deeply ideological.
There is no doubt that Iran, despite its discretion, views these developments as a real threat after losing its militias. Through the course of events, it now faces two options: surrender, which it rejects entirely, or the Samson option of confrontation: tearing down the temple upon everyone. This Samson-like logic is madness because it will inflict major damage on the countries of the region, while completely destroying Iran in return. The reason is that regional countries, through their new alliances, have become alert to this, enhanced their defensive capabilities, and prepared sufficiently for confrontation if it is imposed upon them.
To make Iran think rationally, the visit of the delegation from the Makkah Agreement countries to Tehran took place to give diplomacy a window to pull Iran back from a position of self-destruction and destroying the region. Guided by rationality, the Makkah Agreement countries sought to assist Iran in its negotiations with the US, find a way out, and obstruct Netanyahu's plans - which aim, like Iran's, to dominate the region - as they seek to create military balances that guarantee everyone lives in peace.
It appears from the voices coming out of Iran that the leadership has not yet understood this sincere diplomatic push. Instead, it may be betting on China and Russia in this fateful battle, at a time when China is pleased with any reduction in America's dominance over energy and corridors, but does not desire an indirect war with the US that harms its trade and damages its credibility with its Arab allies.
Russia is providing limited assistance to Iran as part of a barter strategy with Trump, which appears successful given his favorable shift toward Moscow, the lifting of oil sanctions, and mineral extraction agreements in Alaska. This tactical alignment provides Russian President Vladimir Putin with diplomatic leverage to balance relations between the US and China, thereby avoiding strategic dependence on either power.
The international equation is taking shape based on the conviction that China is not seeking to replace the US in the region, but rather intends to leverage the American role to boost its trade while expanding commercial and potentially future military alliances with regional countries. For its part, Russia recognizes the difficulty of returning to the region and is consequently focusing on concluding the war in Ukraine through a settlement that satisfies most of its demands, harboring the hope of engaging with the US to revitalize its industries, commerce, and economy.
Iran's leaders are aware of these transformations and are undoubtedly attempting to avoid their pitfalls. However, they are constrained by ideology and the conviction that making a concession will only lead to further concessions, and that America's guarantees cannot be trusted; consequently, their inevitable option remains distinctively Samson-like. The countries of the Makkah Agreement recognize the harms of this option, and for this reason, the Tehran meeting was a final opportunity to bring some reason to Iran.
