Afrasianet - Dr. Hassan Nafaa - The current intractability of the region's crises is rooted in a fundamental reason: they are so intertwined that it is impossible to address each in isolation, so there is an urgent need for a new approach that allows them to be addressed in a comprehensive way.
No one can predict the durability of the current truce, especially since experience from the recent pattern of relations between Iran and the United States suggests that war could break out again at any moment, even if negotiations resume.
The first war on Iran, which was initiated by the Zionist entity on June 13 and joined by the United States on June 21, broke out at a time when indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States were in full swing, and the Omani mediator was praising the progress it was making. The second war on Iran, which was a joint Israeli-American war this time, was also waged at a time when negotiations were in full swing and the Omani mediator was praising the progress that had been made Protect it.
Therefore, a renegotiation would not be a guarantee that the war would not resume, and it would not necessarily lead to an agreement that would end these repeated rounds of fighting. As of this writing, Trump was still insisting that any new negotiations with Iran must achieve what he could not achieve with war:
1. Completely and definitively dismantle Iran's nuclear program, including Iran's commitment not to enrich uranium on its territory and to hand over all its 60% enriched uranium possession.
2- Reducing Iran's missile program to prevent the production of missiles with a range of more than 200 km.
3- Iran should cut off all forms of relations with: Hamas and Jihad in Palestine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansar Allah in Yemen, and armed militias in Iraq. Because Iran has not been defeated in either war and is still able to resume fighting, thus harming not only the Zionist entity and American interests in the region but also the global economic system as a whole, it is not expected to give in to American demands, which means that Trump will sooner or later be forced to choose between alternatives Three, all bitter: resuming the fighting, freezing the status quo, or looking for compromises that lead to ending the war and lifting sanctions on Iran.
The option of resuming fighting seems unlikely for many reasons, the most important of which is the consensus among military experts that air and missile bombardment is not enough to achieve a decisive victory in the war against Iran and requires a ground invasion that the United States and Israel are unable to do, especially since it requires throwing hundreds of thousands of soldiers into the battle.
However, the difficulty of predicting President Trump's irrational actions, on the one hand, and Netanyahu's ability to continuously influence Trump's thinking, on the other, make it unlikely that air and missile strikes will resume at any time, although strategically useless, and will likely deepen his current predicament and narrow the way out.
The option of maintaining the status quo, which means that the United States continues to impose a blockade on Iranian ports overlooking the Gulf and Iran continues to impose its control over the Strait of Hormuz, may be less expensive than the first option, but it is also not without drawbacks, especially in light of the divergent views on the extent to which each of the conflicting parties can bear its political and economic costs and burdens. While some believe that Iran will not be able to face the blockade due to its cost. Others believe that the United States will be the first to cry out because of its inability to withstand the reactions caused by the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz on the global economy, and at the same time they believe that Iran will be able to face the blockade on its ports relatively more easily, for many reasons, the most important of which are:
1- The length of its land borders with neighboring countries, which guarantees it freedom of movement and the ability to communicate with the outside world, both in import and export, through land transport and railway lines.
2- The ability to reach Russia and Kazakhstan through its ports on the Caspian Sea.
3- Its experience in dealing with harsh sanctions imposed on it over many decades, including those imposed on its oil sales, and it has been able to circumvent many of them.
These are all factors that help Iran bear the consequences of a blockade that usually takes a relatively long time to exert its effect, especially since Iran has been able to achieve self-sufficiency in many different areas.
In light of the above, the United States is left with no choice but to eventually be forced to agree to make concessions that will end the war and lift sanctions, which will not be easy for President Trump to accept for two reasons: First, any concession he makes to a regime that he has publicly sought to overthrow will be considered an explicit admission of failure and defeat, and thus will have significant negative repercussions on the American interior, which may cost him the loss of the legislative majority in the midterm congressional elections, and may cause his overthrow Eventually.
Second, Netanyahu has a vested interest in resuming war with Iran, and therefore any concession he makes away from this option will inevitably help blow up differences with him, which Trump has been keen to avoid all along.
Since its nuclear program is the only area in which Iran may accept concessions, given its keenness to prove its peacefulness, while Netanyahu seems more interested in expanding the scope of concessions to include imposing strict restrictions on Iran's missile program and forcing Iran to permanently cut off its relations with all components of the axis of resistance, which it is not expected to accept, which leads us to believe that all possible options theoretically seem unlikely in practice.
The region's crises are now intractable for a fundamental reason: they are so intertwined that it is impossible to address each in isolation, so there is an urgent need for a new approach that allows them to be addressed in a comprehensive and parallel manner.
This overlap is due, on the one hand, to contradictions inherent in the structure of the Zionist project itself, and to the structure of Israeli policies towards the countries of the region, on the other.
Because the Zionist project is expansionist by virtue of its structure, it is natural that it poses a source of threat to all the targeted parties, which are not limited to the neighboring countries of the Zionist entity, but extend to the entire country of the region as a whole.
It is true that the essence of the conflict is due to the contradiction that exists with the Palestinian people in particular, because the Zionist project aimed from the beginning to seize the entire land and its historical homeland, but its latent expansionist tendency led it to aspire to the wider and thus seize large areas of land owned by other peoples, including the Sinai in Egypt, the Golan in Syria, and the southern Litani in Lebanon. etc.
This is because its expansionist tendency towards expansion in the territories of others is accompanied by a parallel tendency towards domination over the entire region, as evidenced by the fact that the foreign policy of the Zionist entity has been centered on its constant keenness to achieve military superiority over the countries of the region as a whole and not to allow any other country in the region to dominate it, which explains its current clash with Iran, which in essence aims to strip it of all manifestations of power and influence.
The balances produced by the interactions resulting from the latest round of fighting may lead to a freeze in the conflict with the Zionist project in the region at the current battle lines, especially since the Zionist-American alliance formed against the "axis of resistance" is about to win important elections this year (the midterm congressional elections in the United States and the general legislative elections in the Zionist entity).
However, this freeze will not lead to a lasting solution to the conflict in the region, and it will therefore have to explode again in periodic rounds of fighting, which no one can predict from now on when or how it will occur, unless serious consideration begins for a comprehensive and balanced settlement of this conflict. In my estimation, Iran, whose steadfastness has prevented the region from falling under Zionist-American domination, can make an important contribution to the discussion and elaboration of the main parameters of such a comprehensive settlement, in cooperation with the main Arab and Islamic countries in the region.
In contrast to the partial and separate compromises proposed by the Zionist-American alliance with the parties to the conflict in the region, based on the Palestinian side on the disarmament of the Palestinian resistance factions, on the Lebanese side on the disarmament of Hezbollah, and on the Iranian side on the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program, limiting its missile program, and severing ties with the rest of the components of the axis of resistance, all of which are compromises dedicated to Zionist hegemony in the region, the main Arab and Islamic countries in the region, especially Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran should cooperate Pakistan, in offering an alternative to a comprehensive settlement of the conflict in the region, is based on the following elements:
1- Israel's withdrawal from all the Arab territories it occupied in 1967.
2- The establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital on all the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967.
3- Emptying the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction and foreign military bases.
4- Integrating armed movements and factions into the armies of the concerned countries after reaching political settlements that ensure the establishment of centralized political systems that are representative of all and capable of protecting the homelands.
5- Agreeing on a comprehensive security institutional framework that prevents the outbreak of an arms race in the region, and maintains the balance of power among all its countries, and is guaranteed by the major powers through a Security Council resolution.
