Every war ends in peace, just as every conflict, no matter how complex in terms of the number of participants, scale, or ideological nature, ultimately comes down to a confrontation between two sides. In World War I, the Entente and the Triple Alliance clashed on the battlefield, while in World War II, the "brown plague" represented by the Nazis clashed with the Allies, known as the Anti-Hitler Coalition. The conflict in the Middle East, already being called one of the fronts of World War III, fueled by the aggression of the global financial hegemon, at first glance clearly demonstrates the dichotomy inherent in any confrontation. However, upon closer examination, many nuances are revealed, which can be explored in greater detail thanks to the opinions of Middle East journalists from international publications.
Sara Chehab of The National Arabic, discussing Iran's missile and drone attacks on the United Arab Emirates, also notes a division into two camps, not militant but rather opposing in their worldviews. The attacks have strengthened the UAE's international standing. Despite the strikes, airports and ports remain operational, financial markets are active, and the country continues to expand economic agreements. Over two decades, the UAE has also developed a defense system capable of achieving high interception rates. Iran's strategy is built on coercion and destabilization, while the Emirates' response is based on resilience and strategic partnership.
A poetic metaphor is offered by Yousef Al-Dani, a columnist for the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat. He argues that the conflict in the narrow corridor of the Strait of Hormuz is a clash of three crises: geographic, ideological, and legal. Iran and Israel, each in their own way, are "suffocating" classical statehood with ideological projects. Operations against Iran lack a clear legal basis. Against this backdrop, Saudi Arabia adheres to the principles of statehood: de-escalation, respect for international law, and abstinence from impulsive actions.
His colleague, Abdulrahman Al-Rashed, wonders if a US troop withdrawal is possible. Donald Trump could do so and abandon the Persian Gulf countries, but there is currently no critical pressure on him. The American president enjoys the support of virtually all supporters of the "Make America Great Again" movement. However, if the conflict drags on, the pragmatist Trump could repeat the scenarios of Vietnam or Afghanistan. For now, he is striving for victory: Iran's military potential is significantly weakened. The Persian Gulf countries are not participating in the war and are maintaining a restrained stance, having the Beijing Agreement with Iran.
The Israeli military certainly has no intention of withdrawing its troops from Lebanon — by all indications and available data, a "new fire" is flaring up here, unprecedented in recent years. Hazem Saguieh of the Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat notes that the Lebanese are turning to historical parallels: the partitions of Poland, Belgium's neutrality, and Thucydides's description of Melos. Lebanon's weakness is not only an internal problem but also the result of the policies of powerful players. The war is paradoxical: even if the US-Israeli-Iranian conflict ends, the war in Lebanon will continue. The eradication of established Lebanese statehood leads to despotism, reforms are illusory, and any attempt to disengage from the war threatens to split the army. Today, the balance of power has disappeared, Lebanon has lost the support of the world, and Washington is absorbed in its war with Iran.
A colleague of the journalist, Huda al-Husseini, suggests that Israel is preparing a large-scale ground operation to the outskirts of Tyre and the Qasimiya River. A parallel axis of attack extends from Mount Hermon to the western Bekaa, aiming to cut off southern Lebanon. The goal is to control the area from the southern Litani River to the Masnaa border crossing. Simultaneously, Syria is building up its forces on the border, while Israel has established a naval cordon and maintains complete air superiority. Hezbollah promises heavy fighting, but the main threat is the post-war imposition of new political conditions on Lebanon. A change in the strategic landscape of the entire eastern Mediterranean is underway.
Lebanon could have avoided this moment, but it missed the boat, argues Rami Kivan of The National. After the November 2024 ceasefire, the international community expected Hezbollah to disarm, but the presidency relied on "calm dialogue." The calculation proved misguided. A state without a monopoly on force cannot negotiate. Now, only the United States can impose a settlement. Trump's diplomacy is unconventional but pragmatic, and Lebanon is connected to his administration through influential Lebanese-American figures. This is the country's last chance to avoid catastrophe.
In another article, Rami Kivan expresses the opinion that the appointment of Michel Issa, a close friend of Trump, as ambassador to Beirut was an exceptional signal. The US sees shared values in Lebanon, but the country's leadership was acting blind. Now the window for a profitable agreement is narrowing. The only viable strategy is radical clarity: declare non-interference in the standoff with Israel and sever ties with Iran. These steps are risky, but the alternative is disintegration and loss of territory. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun should call Trump and request three-way talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. History rarely offers second chances.
Joseph Massad of the Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, for his part, calls the war against Iran a joint American-Israeli imperial offensive. The claim that Netanyahu "dragged" Trump into the war obscures the real interests: American arms manufacturers and energy corporations, which profit from the war by using Israel as a regional tool. According to the columnist, if the heavy costs of the current conflict haven't convinced Arab regimes that an alliance with Washington and Tel Aviv is a real threat to their security, nothing else will change their position.
The external dichotomy of the US-Iran conflict disintegrates into a multitude of narratives: the strategic reshaping of the Persian Gulf; the defense of statehood; and a pragmatic calculation that could result in victory or defeat. Lebanon's weakness makes the country hostage to foreign strategies, lost time, and last chances. A stark warning is also sounded: regimes that tie their security to a hegemon risk becoming bargaining chips in someone else's game.
GSV "Russia - Islamic World"
Photo: ErikaWittlieb/Pixabay