The guiding principle in our region, historically shaped by the Arab-Palestinian-Israeli conflict, was once “land for peace.” This concept served as the legal interpretation of UN Security Council Resolution 242, which was seen as a foundation for peace.
Today, however, we face a new reality: “blood for negotiations”- not even for peace. A striking example of this is Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s recent announcement that negotiations with Washington over the nuclear program could resume.
Khamenei told his new government that there is “no harm” in engaging with their “enemy,” adding: “This doesn’t mean we cannot interact with the same enemy in certain situations,” but cautioned them not to “pin their hopes” on it.
So, is there anything inherently wrong with Iranian-American negotiations over the nuclear deal? Clearly not. No one desires a devastating war in the region. However, a critical issue that cannot be overlooked is the timing of these negotiations.
Khamenei is endorsing these talks while the war on Gaza enters its 11th month, at the cost of 40,000 deaths and widespread destruction, with no sign of flexibility from Netanyahu.
He blesses these negotiations even as the possibility of an expanded Israeli-Lebanese conflict involving Hezbollah looms. This comes in the wake of Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination in Tehran, alongside Israeli incursions into the West Bank, while Tehran repeatedly accuses Washington of backing Israel and participating in regional conflicts.
Khamenei’s blessing comes at a time when Iran and its militias saw October 7 as a pivotal moment to halt Saudi-American negotiations, which were primarily aimed at preserving the Palestinian cause and initiating the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Last year, Khamenei stated that the Al-Aqsa Flood came at a critical juncture, claiming that those behind it “thwarted the grand plan for the new Middle East.” He added that the operation was precisely what the region needed, according to Iran’s Tasnim news agency.
Politically speaking, Khamenei’s support for negotiations is also notable because the US administration is in a “lame-duck” phase. This suggests that Tehran is seeking to “buy time” to avoid war, aiming to hold out until the US elections - much like Netanyahu, who is also seeking time to execute his plans.
All of this highlights the fact that the October 7 attack was a reckless gamble that did not yield results for Iran. Now, Iran has returned to the negotiating table over its nuclear program, hoping to secure a position in discussions about Gaza and to shield Hezbollah from a potentially catastrophic war.
This is happening amid the silence of those I call “keyboard warriors,” as well as those who once condemned peace negotiations with Washington as treasonous. Meanwhile, the geopolitical landscape in Gaza is shifting, something I warned about on October 11, 2023, when I said, “beware of changing borders.” I was accused of treason then, but today it is becoming reality.
Thus, the question for all the theorists, since October 7, is this: Is it acceptable to allow Gaza’s destruction for the sake of these interests? Is it acceptable for four Arab countries to be devastated in pursuit of Iranian goals? And is this systematic destruction of the Arab people, under outdated slogans, justifiable?
The ultimate question remains: When will our region learn, as the costs paid have been all too real and painful?
