The Middle East appears to be at a crossroads between stability and further devastation. The region is experiencing a cycle of wars and crises, open in time and space, interconnected to varying degrees, directly or indirectly, due to the various identity-based ideologies that transcend nation and states.
The Middle East is witnessing a trilogy of temporary truces, either in the name of working toward a complete and comprehensive ceasefire, or in the name of preparing for such a ceasefire. A ceasefire is, of course, necessary, but in the case of some conflicts and their specificities, it remains necessary to work toward a political settlement to ensure that open warfare does not return.
The first of these wars, the Israeli one on Gaza, has brought with it a different form of war, so far, on the West Bank. The title of this war is the abolition of the Palestinian people's national identity (considering they are on someone else's land), their displacement, and the consecration of the annexation of the West Bank. Reaching a temporary truce in Gaza falls within this policy: a policy of buying time to create a new reality on Palestinian land, which in practice means heating up the situation on the ground so that an explosion can occur again at a later stage...
The second of these wars was the Israeli war on Lebanon after 17 years of calm under the guise of Security Council Resolution 1701 (which established a ceasefire following the July 2006 war). This resolution created, consolidated, and managed a fait accompli on the ground in the south. The trigger for that war was Hezbollah's decision to open a southern front under the banner of "unity of arenas" in solidarity with Hamas, and also with the strategic gains this entailed in the region. This provided a golden opportunity for Israel to respond with an open escalation in terms of location and firepower, with the aim of achieving the primary Israeli goal of eliminating Hezbollah militarily. This created dual complications at both the internal and external levels. This comes at a time when Lebanon is in dire need of revitalizing the state's role at all levels of sovereignty and reform, in order to enter the door of comprehensive reforms.
The third of these wars is the Israeli war on Iran, in which Washington participated and then forced Israel to cease it. This is also the logic of a truce that will not translate into a permanent and effective cessation of war, which Israel could wage again as long as the "Iranian nuclear issue" is not resolved. Direct negotiations around the table are still suspended due to the contradiction between the American and Israeli goals, despite some distinctions between them, on the one hand, and the Iranian goals on the other: zero enrichment in Iran for Washington, while accepting enrichment below the internationally accepted ceiling but outside Iran. Meanwhile, Iran asserts its right to enrichment as permitted by relevant international agreements and on its own territory...
Legal and legitimate solutions based entirely on international legitimacy and relevant UN resolutions provide the necessary international guarantees for their respect and implementation. As a reminder, reviving the peace process on the basis of recognized international terms of reference, which Israel completely and consistently violates, and achieving a two-state solution will enable the desired peace.
Will the logic of truces and intermittent wars continue to govern the development of these hot and pressing issues in the region? Or will the region enter the door of comprehensive solutions, even within gradual approaches such as solutions based on international rules, laws, and norms regulating relations between states and relevant UN resolutions? This remains an open question, and the new developments will indicate the path the region will take in the future.