The current regional landscape is open to the possibility of a continuation of war or a settlement, amid a U.S.-Iranian conflict that could reshape the balance of power in the Middle East.
Afrasianet - Ghassan Melhem - Undoubtedly, many ordinary people are floundering in the abyss of this terrible labor throughout the entire region, from the Levant to the Arabian Gulf, and between them the Arabian Peninsula, and not just the country, and they realize that the vision is blurred, the horizon is blocked, the situation is difficult, and the future is not guaranteed! Many people ask: Where are we?
In fact, there are two trends in analysis when approaching the expected or likely duration of the war in the region between the United States and Israel on the one hand, and Iran on the other, and trying to take note of it:
the first is that the war in the Middle East will end soon, not far away, with the Israeli and American elections in October and November 2026 approaching, respectively. Historically sharp, and unprecedented, stockpiles and reserves of weapons and ammunition of both Americans and Israelis, reinforce the idea that the state of war must be ended for these and other urgent reasons.
The second trend is that this war will continue in the Middle East for a long time, or for a longer period of time, and perhaps until the end of the presidential term of the current US President Donald Trump, at the head of the US administration, between December 2028 and January 2029, as the path of a political solution seems to be faltering, and therefore the option of a political solution is impossible, until further notice, given the intransigence and intransigence of the American side, in contrast to the steadfastness and hardening of the rhetoric and position on the Iranian side. So that the cycle of violence and its rounds between take-and-return and ebb and flow continue in the short and medium term.
If the decision of war and peace is in the hands of Washington and Tel Aviv, as well as the determination of the duration of the war, its geographical scope is not, nor even its outcomes. Iran, on the other hand, is repelling aggression and countering an attack on it.
Therefore, there are also two possibilities, in the estimation, when shedding light on the Iranian reaction, recorded or observed (under observation), and trying to understand how the Iranian position is formed, and how the Iranian vision and plan crystallizes to determine how to deal and deal with it, in light of the course of the US-Israel war, while pointing to the absence or absence of an exit strategy:
the first possibility is that Iran will be able to liquidate America's regional military presence in the Middle East to the maximum, and thus America's exit, or to say Iran's expulsion The United States from the region, especially from the Gulf region, understands the importance, danger and difficulty of this possibility, which does not seem to be easily attained, nor even remote, for subjective and objective reasons, as it relates to both America and Iran, although such a possible or hypothetical path may lead to some change, it is strategic, perhaps even to the extent of thinking about the future and fate of the Israeli entity, and the problem of its survival in this existence and survival, in a way that seems utopian and surreal.
The second possibility is that Iran will be able to undermine America's regional political presence in the Middle East at a minimum, thus reducing America's role, and diminishing its influence in the region, especially in the Gulf region, and perhaps also in parts of the Levant, which will open the door and open the way for research on how to fill the vacuum left by the repositioning or redeployment of the United States of America militarily and politically in the region. Inevitably, regardless of whether it is in maps, entities, and political borders, or in regional locations, situations, and roles.
There are also two logics that may be expressed by experts, observers, and analysts, and they revolve around one of them:
The first logic leads us, in one way or another, to the hypothesis that it is impossible for America, Israel, and Iran, or rather, America and Iran to meet, with Israel certainly excluded, and thus assuming the continuation of the state of war between them, as if we are facing two parallel lines that do not meet, and cannot meet, without complete defeat in exchange for complete victory.
And the Iranians, of course, are far from the Israelis, while this logic assumes that the state of conflict and confrontation between Washington and Tehran will continue indefinitely.
The second logic ultimately leads us to the idea of a political settlement between America and Israel on the one hand, and Iran on the other, according to the balance of power, their sizes, and weights, and on the basis of neither victor nor vanquishment, because the logic of political abolition may seem impossible, given that the possibility of a military solution is also almost impossible; America is not able to force surrender on Iran, nor even crush it, nor eliminate it, nor is Iran capable of defeating America, in the sense of defeat Military, not political.
This is how this historical moment is, and this is how such pivotal and fateful stages are in the history of international relations, in the life of the regional system, and indeed in the entire world system, as we are still in the open accounts of each of the possibilities.
This overwhelming chaos may continue, or perhaps worsen and escalate, until new roles, equations, balances, and arrangements are formed in the region and the world, and their stability is also established.
________________
Ghassan Melhem - Head of the Department of Political Science at the Lebanese University.
________________
