While much attention has been placed on Lebanon within the wider US-Iran understanding, the central question remains Gaza.
This is the front from which the regional war began. It is the wound that has not closed. It is the place where civilians continue to be killed, displaced, starved and besieged. It is also the front that no regional agreement can ignore if it claims to end the war on all fronts.
A ceasefire that mentions Lebanon but leaves Gaza unresolved may reduce tension temporarily, but it cannot produce stability. Gaza is not a secondary file. Gaza is the heart of the crisis.
For Muslims, this point is not only strategic. It is moral. Palestine is not an item on a negotiating agenda. It is a land of sanctity, blood, patience and betrayal. Any regional settlement that tries to calm borders while leaving Gaza under siege is not peace. It is delay.
Gaza Cannot Be Treated as a Side Issue
Reports in recent days said that Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi discussed the situation in Gaza and the wider US-Iran negotiations with senior Hamas official Basem Naim. According to statements linked to the call, Gaza remains central to the discussions because any serious attempt to end the regional war must include the Palestinian front.
That is the core issue.
Lebanon has received major attention because it became one of the most active military fronts in the wider confrontation. It also required a more formal ceasefire mechanism after repeated Israeli violations and continued instability along the border.
But Gaza is different.
Lebanon may be one of the most dangerous fronts, but Gaza is the original front. Without the events of October 7, 2023, and the war that followed, the region would not have entered the same phase of escalation. The confrontation with Lebanon, the wider role of Iran, the pressure on US forces and the broader regional crisis all developed from the war on Gaza.
To discuss a regional ceasefire while leaving Gaza outside the centre of the agreement is to misunderstand the war itself.
Netanyahu’s War of Many Fronts
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly presented the war as a multi-front campaign. The language of “total victory” has been used to frame Israel’s actions in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Iran as part of one regional struggle.
But despite enormous destruction, Israel has failed to produce a decisive strategic victory.
In Gaza, the Palestinian resistance was not eliminated. In Lebanon, Hezbollah remained a central military and political actor despite suffering serious blows. In Iran, the war did not produce the collapse or surrender that Israel and its allies had hoped for.
Israel achieved tactical successes. It assassinated figures, damaged infrastructure, struck military sites and created moments of psychological impact. But tactical victories are not the same as strategic victory.
A strategic victory would mean reshaping the region on Israeli terms. That has not happened.
This is why Gaza remains so important. If Israel cannot defeat Iran or Hezbollah decisively, it may return to Gaza as the weakest and most exposed front, attempting to extract a victory through further punishment of civilians.
The Illusion of Israeli Momentum
After the escalation in Lebanon and the political upheaval in Syria, Israeli leaders attempted to present the regional balance as having shifted decisively in their favour. The argument was simple: Hezbollah had been weakened, Syria had changed, and Iran’s regional network was under pressure.
This narrative created the illusion that the Axis of Resistance was close to collapse.
But recent events have complicated that picture.
Iran did not collapse under pressure. Hezbollah did not disappear from the field. Gaza did not surrender. The regional war did not produce the clean Israeli victory promised by Netanyahu.
Instead, Israel now faces a difficult reality. It has widened the war, but it has not ended the threat. It has used overwhelming force, but it has not achieved lasting security. It has deepened regional hostility, but it has not imposed a stable order.
This is why the Gaza file could become more important than Lebanon in determining whether the US-Iran understanding holds.
Why Gaza Could Collapse the Agreement
Any ceasefire arrangement that reduces pressure on Lebanon and Iran while leaving Gaza burning creates a dangerous imbalance.
If Gaza remains under siege, bombardment and forced displacement, the Palestinian resistance will not simply accept being isolated and slowly strangled. Nor will Muslim public opinion across the region accept a settlement that calms other fronts while abandoning the people of Gaza.
This creates a strategic problem for Iran as well.
If Tehran wants the regional ceasefire to hold, Gaza must be part of it. Otherwise, the Palestinian front remains an open wound capable of pulling the region back into escalation.
The logic is straightforward. If Gaza is left alone, the resistance factions will eventually be pushed toward another major operation. If that happens, the region could return to the starting point, with Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Iraq and other fronts once again pulled into the confrontation.
Therefore, Gaza is not merely a humanitarian issue. It is the key to whether the regional war can actually end.
Israel May Try to Use Gaza to Break the MoU
The Israeli leadership understands this very well.
If a US-Iran understanding limits Israel’s freedom to escalate against Iran or Lebanon, Gaza may become the arena where Israel tries to regain initiative. By intensifying pressure on civilians, expanding military operations, or pushing forced displacement, Israel could attempt to provoke a reaction from the Palestinian resistance and collapse the wider diplomatic framework.
This would allow Netanyahu to argue that the war must continue and that ceasefire efforts are unrealistic.
In other words, Gaza could be used as both a battlefield and a political trigger.
This is why the coming phase is extremely dangerous. If Gaza is excluded from the practical terms of de-escalation, it becomes the easiest place for Israel to restart the regional fire.
The Human Cost Cannot Be Buried Under Diplomacy
There is also a deeper moral issue.
Diplomacy often speaks in the language of fronts, clauses, security guarantees, red lines and mechanisms. But Gaza is not an abstract front. Gaza is families under rubble, children without food, hospitals under pressure, mothers searching for sons, fathers carrying the bodies of daughters, and entire neighbourhoods erased.
For Muslims, the blood of Gaza cannot be treated as a bargaining chip.
The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, taught that the believers are like one body. When one part suffers, the rest of the body responds with pain and concern. Gaza is not a distant political file. It is part of the body of this Ummah.
If the world tries to end the regional war without ending the suffering of Gaza, then it is not pursuing justice. It is managing instability.
Lebanon Matters, But Gaza Is the Core
None of this means Lebanon is unimportant.
Lebanon has paid a heavy price. Southern villages have been destroyed, civilians displaced, and Israeli violations have continued to undermine ceasefire arrangements. Hezbollah’s role in the regional war also means Lebanon remains one of the most sensitive fronts in any wider agreement.
But Lebanon and Gaza cannot be separated.
The Lebanese front was activated because of Gaza. The regional escalation widened because of Gaza. The moral pressure across the Muslim world exists because of Gaza. If Gaza is excluded, then every other ceasefire becomes fragile.
A real ceasefire must address the original cause, not only the symptoms.
Iran’s Strategic Dilemma
Iran now faces a critical calculation.
If it secures de-escalation for itself and Lebanon while Gaza remains exposed, it risks losing moral and strategic credibility. It also risks allowing Israel to isolate the Palestinian resistance and impose a new phase of destruction on Gaza.
But if Iran insists that Gaza be included in any wider settlement, it preserves both the political relevance of the Palestinian front and the possibility of a more durable regional ceasefire.
This does not mean Iran controls Gaza. It does not. Palestinian factions make their own decisions according to conditions on the ground. But Iran remains an important regional actor with leverage in negotiations, and that leverage matters.
If Tehran wants stability, Gaza must be protected from being sacrificed.
The Danger of “Peace” Without Justice
The greatest danger now is a false peace.
A false peace is when borders become quieter while Gaza continues to bleed.
A false peace is when diplomacy protects states but not civilians.
A false peace is when regional powers claim victory while Palestinians remain trapped under siege.
A false peace is when the world asks Gaza to disappear so that everyone else can move on.
This kind of peace cannot last.
Islam teaches that justice is the foundation of stability. Oppression may be managed for a time, but it does not produce peace. It produces pressure. It produces anger. It produces resistance. It produces another explosion.
The regional war began because Palestine was never resolved. It will not truly end while Gaza is left unresolved.
The Real Test of the US-Iran Understanding
The US-Iran MoU may reduce tensions temporarily. It may create space for negotiations. It may slow down escalation across some fronts. But its real test is Gaza.
If Gaza is brought into the centre of the ceasefire framework, there may be a chance to prevent another major regional escalation. If Gaza is ignored, the agreement becomes vulnerable from the beginning.
Israel may see Gaza as the easiest front to attack. The resistance may see escalation as the only remaining option. Iran may be forced back into confrontation. Lebanon may again be pulled into the war.
That is why Gaza could break the US-Iran ceasefire.
Not because Gaza is a side issue, but because it is the original issue.
No regional agreement can survive while the people of Gaza are left to face siege, bombardment and displacement alone.
The war began with Gaza.
Any real end to the war must begin there too.
