There are many readings about what the region will settle into for the next hundred years after the sweeping geopolitical shifts that the Middle East has witnessed since Hamas launched “Operation Al-Aqsa Flood” on 7 October 2023 against Israel, all the way to Israel’s “Rising Lion” operation against Iran on 13 June this year, which lasted twelve days before the United States announced a ceasefire between the two sides.
The overlapping, tangled, and conflicting files take time and effort to sort out — and they always demand wars and negotiations, blood and tears and destruction, despair and hope. What is unfolding now is like the painful labour of a difficult caesarean birth, awaited by both the states immersed in the conflict and those affected by it. U.S. President Donald Trump — unlike any of his predecessors who have occupied the White House — is ready to venture into the “unthinkable” in politics to achieve his goals, under the banner of “America First,” making the country “great again,” and establishing peace as he sees it.
How the White House is handling Syria’s transitional president Ahmad Al-Sharaa, is proof enough of Trump’s willingness to turn black into white if it serves his strategy and ultimate project. He would not hesitate to land his plane in Tehran to meet Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei if that could lead to a comprehensive deal with Iran covering its nuclear programme, ballistic missiles, drones, and proxies — in return for Iran’s return to the global order and its transformation into a “great state.” What Trump wants to see quickly is an end to the “Gaza War,” which could open the door for final arrangements, paving the way for resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and ultimately advancing his aim of expanding the Abraham Accords — which, if a true Arab–Israeli peace is achieved, could reshape the region and earn him a Nobel Peace Prize and the title “Man of Peace,” a legacy he sees as priceless.
The Battle to Reshape the Middle East
Trump’s flaw — and perhaps his advantage — is that he is an impatient man with no long breath. Betting on stalling for time or dragging things out with him may be a mistake. His strength is that he is driving the battle to reshape the Middle East at the start of his term: three and a half years is a long time for the other side to try to ride it out, even if they pursue “strategic patience.” Iran remains at the eye of the storm and, like its proxies, faces a defining moment.
Despite the silence and caution surrounding the outcome of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, and the U.S. envoy Thomas Barrack’s visit to Lebanon — along with the Lebanese response he received to the American proposal — reading between the lines of what Netanyahu and Barrack said helps outline the paths and deadlines to come.
Netanyahu, at the end of his Washington trip, said that his meeting with Trump resulted in what he described as “historic understandings” related to Gaza and the region — and “beyond.” He noted that the details will be revealed later. The headline that surfaced in the U.S.–Israeli discussions was the Gaza war, the fate of hostages, and ways to reach a ceasefire. The visit came after the war on Iran and the repercussions of striking the leadership structures of the regime and the Revolutionary Guard, along with the destruction of key nuclear facilities: Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow.
An Agreement on a Lasting Solution
These understandings will remain under wraps for now. Tom Harb, Director of the American Middle East Coalition, said: “Netanyahu’s visit to Washington gives the full picture. He said that there is a new 60-day window for negotiations between Israel and Hamas and talks between the U.S. and Iran. What happens next will depend on how these negotiations unfold. For Gaza, the goal is to reach an agreement on a permanent solution. According to what we hear from American decision-making circles, this solution requires forming a force — most likely Arab — to enter Gaza. Netanyahu is adamant that achieving a permanent ceasefire is conditional on disarming Hamas, stripping Gaza of its military character, and eliminating any governmental or military capabilities it has. If that happens through negotiation, that’s good. If not, it will be done by other means.”
The same logic applies to Iran: the new 60-day window — which Trump seems to have set once again — is for negotiating a nuclear agreement that removes any possibility of the regime converting “peaceful nuclear power” into “military nuclear capability,” in addition to controlling its missile programme and dismantling its proxies. Tom Harb adds: “Failing to reach an agreement in this period means giving Netanyahu a green light to return to military action — and other options. Israel is seriously working on the option of toppling the Islamic Republic regime, something the current Iranian leadership fears greatly. If that happens, Trump will say: I advised them to negotiate; had they used the time wisely, this wouldn’t have happened.”
The available information suggests a serious understanding between Netanyahu and Trump about timelines. Even if the temporary ceasefire in Gaza stalls, it will happen sooner or later — and the steps toward a lasting solution or permanent ceasefire are clear, even if delayed. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, talks are underway between Tel Aviv and Damascus about securing the borders at a minimum and potentially paving the road to normalisation between the two states. The U.S. envoy to Beirut urged Lebanese officials not to fall behind. In reality, Lebanon will no longer be able to manoeuvre — nor Hezbollah to maintain its defiance — if Syria and Israel move toward peace. Lebanon would then find itself cornered, something the country’s political leaders know well: at that point, they would not be able to reject peace.
In an interview with Lebanon’s LBC channel during his Beirut visit, Barrack noted that Lebanon’s political culture is based on denial, evasion, and avoidance. In referring to his satisfaction with the Lebanese response — which represented the president, prime minister, and speaker of parliament, and thus the main sects (Christians, Sunnis, Shia) — he offered a pointed comparison: “I’m smart enough to know they’re playing backgammon while I’m playing chess.” In political translation, the backgammon game relies on luck, coincidence, and gambling — while chess depends on logic, foresight, and planning. Thus, the stronger strategic player will win.
Lebanon’s Place in the Waiting Room
What official Lebanon is doing relies on improvisation, surprises, and external circumstances. In truth, it is just waiting to see what happens in the direct and indirect showdown between Iran and Israel. Hezbollah will not surrender its weapons until the shape of the confrontation is clear and reaches its final stage. Iran — militarily — is preparing its arsenal for a battle it believes is inevitable, with the Revolutionary Guard determined to hold on to what remains of its regional proxy power. Among these, the Houthis in Yemen appear the most capable of acting, after Hamas was crushed and Hezbollah suffered a major blow, while the Popular Mobilisation in Iraq knows the heavy price it would pay if it gets deeply involved.
From here, Lebanon’s leadership is convinced that Tehran will not allow Hezbollah to hand over its weapons now — especially its missile arsenal, which remains under its command and is essentially Tehran’s bargaining chip at the negotiating table.
Meanwhile, Israel has international backing to continue striking Hezbollah’s military infrastructure in Lebanon and its stockpiles of weapons and missiles wherever its reach extends. Israel will intensify or slow its operations at will — and it will not accept anything less than eliminating the military threat from Lebanon, since this concerns its border security and national security. This means that official Lebanon’s manoeuvring in line with Hezbollah’s position will not buy it time so much as waste an opportunity for Lebanon to recover, return to being a normal state, revive its economy, claim a place in the region’s project, and move forward on a path of change.
