“Israel’s arrogance will lead it and the region to disaster. The nuclear bomb will not protect it against rockets raining down from Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Yemen and even Iran itself. I am not talking about Israel’s total collapse, but it will be dealt a painful blow. People who immigrated to Israel will think about leaving it because they won’t feel safe anymore.”
Late Secretary-General of the Islamic Jihad movement Dr. Ramadan Shalah once told me this years ago. I heard a similar statement from someone else, and realized that the Iran-allied factions were preparing to launch the “major strike” against Israel with all their might, one which General Qassem Soleimani had dreamed of dealing.
There were whispers that the spark would be lit first in Lebanon and that Hezbollah’s elite forces would infiltrate the border and fight in the land of Galilee. Hezbollah’s opening of the “support front” in solidarity with Sinwar’s Al-Aqsa Flood Operation was evidence of this major strike. The Houthis then followed and Israel and Iran traded strikes.
Netanyahu responded to Sinwar’s “flood” with a total earthquake. And so, we bore witness to a Palestinian-Israeli war, Lebanese-Israeli war, Houthi-Israeli war and an Iranian-Israeli war. These wars changed the balance of power in the region. With the ceasefire in Gaza, the people in power in the region are confronted with difficult missions.
Iran’s supreme leader had never had to contend with such a difficult mission as the one presented by the Israeli strikes on his country and killing of its generals and scientists. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian had never dealt with a mission as difficult as watching Israeli jets occupy the skies of Tehran. He also watched as Syria quit the “Axis of Resistance”, Lebanon demand state monopoly over arms and the president who ordered Soleimani’s killing order strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
It is difficult to believe that Netanyahu has changed and that he is now interested in peace. He believes in victory, displacement, dealing crushing blows, and imposing new realities on the ground or conditions for surrender. It wasn’t easy for him to yield to Donald Trump’s desire to present himself as a peacemaker who resolved a very dangerous chronic conflict.
Who, however, can guarantee that America’s enthusiasm over this issue will continue, especially if Trump gets his hands full with other files? Netanyahu, who has regained the hostages, may exploit new developments to maneuver around Trump’s plan.
Hamas, meanwhile, was in desperate need of a ceasefire. It fought with unprecedented fierceness even as the war claimed its leaders and thousands of its fighters, tens of thousands of civilian lives and destroyed Gaza. Hamas paid the price of reaching a ceasefire. The solution begins with releasing the hostages and relinquishing power in Gaza and its military arsenal. It paid the price for launching the Al-Aqsa Flood.
Has Hamas truly grasped what it has agreed to? Will it really quit the scene? Can the movement live without its arsenal? What if voices started to speak up in Gaza to blame it for giving Israel an excuse to launch a genocidal war? Hamas will find it difficult to find actual allies. Iran alone is not enough and at any rate, Tehran is incapable of turning back time to change the circumstances for itself and its allied factions.
Hamas cannot remain unyielding while the situation in Gaza and the region change. Will Hamas be able to change to such an extent as to stand idly by to allow solutions to play out as they should? Khalil al-Hayya has a difficult mission on his hands.
Hezbollah had no choice but to agree to a cessation of hostilities and the implementation of resolution 1701. The assassination of its secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah was a difficult blow. He was a partner with Soleimani in shaping the “Axis of Resistance”. Hezbollah’s great loss turned into a catastrophe when it lost Syria. Add Israel’s technological superiority to these two losses, then it would be difficult to imagine how Hezbollah could possibly wage a new war against Israel. Perhaps that’s why Israel is continuing its daily killings in Lebanon, perhaps it is luring it into another unequal war that would deepen Hezbollah’s losses.
The great question is: how does the party leadership read these changes? There is an overwhelming demand for it to lay down its weapons, but is the party capable of living without them? What remains of Iran in the region if it loses all the lines of defense that Soleimani set up and had been very generous in funding and supplying with rockets? Is the Hezbollah leadership ready to deal with the changes, or would it rather wait and see, banking on the waning of international interest and loss of momentum created by the Sharm El-Sheikh summit? Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem has a difficult mission on his hands.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam also have a difficult mission to deal with. They know there can be no reconstruction and stability without imposing state monopoly over arms. They are aware of how difficult the mission is and that Lebanon may face international isolation if it does not fulfill its commitments. Most dangerous of all is if it chooses to remain in the military aspect of the conflict with Israel, while Ahmed al-Sharaa's Syria has chosen to quit it. Sharaa himself has a difficult mission on his hands.
