Afrasianet - The Middle East is undergoing an accelerated phase of rebalancing, with three major tracks in Gaza, Iran and Lebanon intertwined, each of which is turning into a factor in the other.
As the United States tries to push for political settlements that ease conflicts, Israel continues to adopt more hawkish positions, putting de-escalation projects to the test and making the future of the region tied to the parties' ability to move from crisis management to addressing their roots.
This overlap is clearly evident in Israel's position on US President Donald Trump's plan for the second phase of the Gaza peace agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's rejection of the plan, and his insistence on not withdrawing from the Strip before Hamas is completely disarmed, not only reflects a disagreement over the future of Gaza, but also reveals a divergence in priorities between Israel and the United States over the form of a settlement that could end the war and rearrange the regional situation.
The developments come at a time of growing speculation about the possibility of an understanding between Washington and Tehran, a path that raises Israeli concerns that any U.S.-Iran deal could reduce Israel's margin of action toward Iran.
Hence, Gaza's calculations intersect with those related to the Iranian file, as Tel Aviv believes that the future of its security is inseparable from the developments of Iran's nuclear program, Tehran's military capabilities, and its network of allies in the region.
Gaza has become more than just an arena for war between Israel and Hamas; the Strip has become a key axis in the rearrangement of regional and international relations. Every attempt to end the war is confronted with questions related to the disarmament of Hamas, the Israeli withdrawal, the future of governance in the Strip, reconstruction, and the role of regional and international powers in the next phase.
Netanyahu's rejection of the Trump plan reflects the complexity of any settlement. While Washington wants to present itself as capable of ending the war and opening the way for a new political phase, the Israeli government ties the withdrawal to the achievement of the security goal of disarming Hamas.
This dispute carries repercussions beyond Gaza itself. The continuation of the war weakens the prospects for regional stability, increases pressure on Washington's Arab allies, and makes any project to rebuild a security and political system in the Middle East more difficult.
If Gaza is one of the most prominent arenas of direct conflict, Iran represents the broader strategic dimension in the Middle East equation. The relationship between Israel and Iran is no longer confined to a shadow war, but has become part of the security and political calculations of the United States and the countries of the region.
Reports of a possible deal between Washington and Tehran suggest a diplomatic track that could reshape the regional landscape. If the negotiations are successful, it could de-escalate and open the door to broader arrangements on regional security, energy, and navigation, especially given the importance of the Strait of Hormuz to the global economy.
But any U.S.-Iran deal could face Israeli objection, especially if Tel Aviv considers the deal to be insufficiently addressed by Iran's military capabilities or Tehran's regional influence. Therefore, the path of negotiation between Washington and Tehran will remain largely tied to the Israeli position and the ability of the U.S. administration to strike a balance between containing Iran and maintaining the alliance with Israel.
Lebanon represents another link in this equation, due to the continued tension between Israel and Hezbollah, the remaining issue of the Israeli military presence in some border areas, in addition to the dispute over the future of weapons and the role of the Lebanese state in managing the security file.
Lebanon is increasingly important because of its direct connection to Iran's regional strategy. Any Israeli escalation against Tehran could have repercussions on the Lebanese front, and any settlement with Iran could open the door to new arrangements on Lebanon and Hezbollah.
The reshaping of the Middle East may have already begun, not through a comprehensive regional agreement, but through a series of simultaneous shifts that redistribute influence and test existing alliances.
U.S. efforts to de-escalate Lebanon cannot be separated from the Gaza track or negotiations with Iran. The United States is trying to prevent any of these fronts from becoming a spark that leads to a broader regional explosion, while Israel seeks to maintain a wide security margin that prevents the rebuilding of military capabilities of those it views as a threat.
These crises present the administration with a complex equation. On the one hand, Trump wants a diplomatic breakthrough that would allow him to present himself as a president capable of ending wars and restoring stability to the region.
On the other hand, it needs to maintain the strategic relationship with Israel and avoid a political clash with pro-Israel forces within the United States.
The equation becomes more difficult as the U.S. and Israeli electoral entitlements approach, as internal calculations overlap with decisions related to war and peace. Netanyahu faces pressure from the right-wing within his government, while Trump, in turn, faces internal political calculations related to the attitude of American voters toward Israel and the war in Gaza.
This means that the future of the Middle East is determined not only by the security interests of states, but also by the domestic political considerations of the leaders who run these files.
The crises in Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon reveal the decline in the ability of the parties to deal with each file as a separate crisis. The war in Gaza affects Israel's relations with Arab countries, and tension with Iran is reflected in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Gulf, while any escalation in Lebanon could reignite a broader confrontation between Israel and the Iranian axis.
The reshaping of the Middle East may have already begun, not through a comprehensive regional agreement, but through a series of simultaneous shifts that redistribute influence and test existing alliances.
The key question remains whether these shifts will lead to a new phase of settlements, or more conflicts. If Washington succeeds in pushing the paths of Gaza, Iran, and Lebanon toward parallel understandings, there may be an opportunity to rebuild a more stable regional security system.
If Israel continues to reject compromises, the U.S.-Iranian dialogue falters, and Lebanon remains caught between internal pressures and regional tensions, the region could enter a new cycle of escalation.
In both cases, the Middle East appears to be facing a pivotal moment: Gaza is no longer a single crisis, Iran is no longer a separate security file, and Lebanon is no longer a marginal front. They are interconnected links in a single regional equation, and how they are dealt with will determine the shape of the Middle East in the coming period.
________________
