At the start of 2026, the Middle East seems surrounded or besieged, geographically and politically, by crises and wars. Some are directly or indirectly interconnected, while de-escalation of conflict will not, of course, allow for solutions or even temporary arrangements that could facilitate later settlements. Others, however, could escalate, further inflaming conflict militarily or politically, depending on the nature of the dispute.
Along the shores of the Mediterranean, we are witnessing both escalation and a degree of de-escalation, however relative. The Israeli war that began in Gaza and then extended to Lebanon goes on, and in the West Bank, annexation through the completion of its Judaization remains Israel’s primary objective to make a two-state solution impossible, as several Israeli officials have reiterated.
Nothing illustrates the growing complexities surrounding Gaza more clearly than the current missteps in the implementation of the second phase of President Trump’s plan, even though many, for different reasons, are unwilling to acknowledge this fact and are seeking to circumvent the difficulties from Israeli interpretations of the Trump plan to resolve them.
In Lebanon, Israel’s policy remains the same. Its open-ended “strategic targeting” continues operations across the country, using all kinds of firepower and attacking at all times of the day. It is as though the announcement of the ceasefire that began on November 27, 2024 applies unilaterally to Lebanon alone. Israel explains its violation through the need for the complete disarmament of Hezbollah, an outcome that, to say the least, is neither possible nor acceptable if carried out according to the Israeli vision, and is therefore unrealistic.
The decision to restrict the possession of arms to Lebanese authorities is beyond essential for restoring the state. It is being pursued within a purely Lebanese framework and in accordance with a timetable developed by the Lebanese authorities themselves. This position enjoys broad popular support, despite recognition of the considerable difficulties and obstacles standing in the way. However, this objective cannot be achieved through the continuation of Israeli aggression, which only further complicates conditions on the ground.
The official Lebanese position is clear and realistic. It deserves to be reiterated. First, it stresses the need for Israel to respect the ceasefire and withdraw from the points it occupies. It also stresses the need to move forward with the “technical negotiations” within the framework of the “Mechanism” to implement - or more precisely, revive - the 1949 Armistice Agreement to regulate the situation along the border, alongside the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701. This Resolution underlines the exclusivity of armament in the hands of the Lebanese state.
It goes without saying that Lebanon remains committed to a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace process as set out in the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. It rejects discretionary approaches to this commitment, whatever its labels or justifications. We remain very far from achieving such a peace.
Also along the Mediterranean coast, a fundamental challenge persists in Syria: launching, strengthening, and supporting a comprehensive national dialogue to reinforce civic, and consequently political and security, stability. Such dialogue must be founded on genuine partnership among all Syrians. I would call it a kind of “Syrian Taif,” in reference to Lebanon’s 1989 Taif Agreement. Despite the differences in circumstances between the two cases, this remains necessary for fortifying stability in Syria.
In the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the Red Sea, an area of growing strategic importance in the game of nations, there is reason to be optimistic that the comprehensive dialogue Saudi Arabia will host to bring together all the parties in southern Yemen will bring us closer to an agreement on the future of this region.
Sudan, too, continues to suffer from ongoing wars. Its social composition - a diverse societal structure - and geopolitical location draw foreign interventions and conflicts. The solution can only be developed by supporting national authority and strengthening participation through dialogue, in order to avert divisions that would be fatal to all.
Another hotspot on the same “stage” concerns the “Republic of Somaliland,” the region that broke away from Somalia. Its strategic position along a vital maritime corridor makes it, as we can see, a magnet for conflicts and division. This is particularly significant for Israel, which, alone among the countries of the world, has recognized this republic. It has also attracted the interest of Ethiopia, which is seeking a pathway, after Eritrea’s independence, to that same strategic passage.
In the Gulf, potentially combustible tension continues to characterize Iranian–American relations, as well as Iran’s relations with the West more broadly, albeit to a lesser degree. Iranian–Israeli conflict could erupt at any moment over the “triad” of the nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and the role of Iran’s proxies in the region. An Israeli attack, with or without Washington’s participation, remains on the table and is being strongly discussed. This is encouraged by shifts in regional balances, particularly after Iran’s loss of its “Syrian ally” and the significant repercussions this has had on Iran’s regional role.
Arab–Iranian normalization does not mean the two sides have reached agreement on the region’s core issues. Their differences and divergences are clear, but they will remain contained so long as the overriding objective is to prevent chaos and avoid plunging into the abyss. Their mutual understanding is creating movement - encouraged, and according to some even requested, by Iran - for diplomacy, making confrontation less likely without ruling out entirely the serious possibility of a limited confrontation, as has happened before.
As we head into the year, the Middle East is at a crossroads between intertwined conflicts and settlements, each influencing the other despite the absence of an organic or direct link between them. Conflicts and settlements, in the region’s “game of nations,” could move in various directions, each with its own varied repercussions across time and space.
