Listen to the article
Iran’s dual-standard approach to the Gaza war, coupled with its diplomatic engagements with international and regional counterparts, particularly the US, reveals a certain ambiguity in its positions. Iran is also not in a hurry to seal an agreement with US President Joe Biden’s administration, opting to wait for the outcome of the upcoming US elections in November.
According to insiders from the Hezbollah-led “obstructionist” bloc (Al-Moumana’a), there is a tendency to follow a balanced strategy of maintaining open lines of communication with all parties, particularly with the Biden administration, through discrete channels on the one hand, and with Hamas and other Moumana’a factions on the other hand.
The prolonged nature of the Gaza war is becoming apparent, suggesting a potential shift towards a war of attrition that could gradually erode Iran’s military proxies in the region, and pave the way for a settlement, a first step towards a comprehensive and equitable peace.
The war in Gaza has transformed regional dynamics and courses, preparing the ground for a new Middle East. New international and regional alliances are emerging, due to developments in many regions across the globe.
Once the smoke of the Gaza war settles, many unanswered questions will be raised, including: What factors determined the timing of the Gaza conflict? Why was Hamas left alone to confront its fate, while pro-Iran forces, such as Hezbollah, provided mere assistance? What happened to the motto of “unification of fronts and battlefields?” What about Syria? Where do countries of the so-called “obstructionist axis” currently stand? Is there an undisclosed power play or a hidden deal in motion? Where does Iran, the pivotal leader of the obstructionist axis, position itself in this scenario?
The articulated stances of Iranian officials, including those of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, President Ibrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian and Quds Force Commander Esmail Qaani, collectively underscore what a Western official interprets as Iran’s dual standards. However, the question remains: What will transpire after Gaza?
As per Western diplomatic circles, a multitude of scenarios are being debated. However, no definite project or defined course of action has been adopted by the international community so far.
Western officials are divided between those endorsing Israel’s actions and those supporting Hamas. According to diplomatic sources, uncertainty is shrouding the future trajectory of developments, and a comprehensive peace settlement is still ambiguous with unclear outlines.
Nonetheless, indications suggest that new alliances would emerge, and controls and regulations would be imposed on all parties to reinforce the peace project.
An Arab official contends that certain regional countries will have to play a role, which is yet to be defined, in any future resolution that would usher in a period of comprehensive peace. Ambiguity is attributed to unforeseen changes and the lack of active states in the public arena.
Therefore, it is anticipated that the region will enter a prolonged war of attrition, leading to a peace project based on the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, with Jerusalem as its capital.
In the meantime, it is unclear who will prevail in this war of attrition — the states through their institutions, or the militias.
To answer the question, a former official argues that the region is about to witness new and noteworthy stances by countries that are presently inactive on the political scene. These countries are expected to play a pivotal role in a broader regional rescue and peace plan.
In this particular context, Syria must assume a role, whether through the current regime or not.
In the transitional phase, Lebanon will be placed in the waiting room, pending the clarification of the situation, notably the outcome of the conflict in Gaza and peace negotiations involving various parties and international actors.
However, in the meantime, European entities are questioning Lebanon’s ability to withstand its multiple crises.
The Group of Five countries, including France, the US, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Egypt, are reportedly deploying significant efforts to end the presidential election deadlock to protect Lebanon from a potential collapse amidst current regional developments and a war of attrition. There is growing apprehension that the void may extend to other security, military and administrative institutions, especially in the army and internal security forces (ISF).
External observers fear that this could lead to Lebanon’s downfall, as Hezbollah holds a stranglehold on the country, impeding viable solutions and propositions. It aims to strengthen its position to achieve highly coveted political gains.
Consequently, Hezbollah is seeking to reinforce its alliance with the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) by endorsing the stance of FPM leader, MP Gebran Bassil, regarding the vacancy in the military command. Army commander General Joseph Aoun is expected to retire on January 10, amid calls to delay his retirement by one year.
According to relevant information, Bassil is preparing to play a new role on the political scene.
Lebanon is currently at a crucial juncture, navigating an existential crisis. Will it be rescued before it is too late? Will its centennial political formula survive or, will it be left to go adrift towards a total collapse, paving the way for the emergence of a new Lebanon based on the outcomes of regional settlements?
