Middle East security is determined by “tactical calculations”

Years of experience have taught me to fear two events that always dominate the news, obscuring attention from everything else: the first is the American “presidential election year,” and the second is major international sporting events—such as the World Cup and the Olympics—which capture people’s attention for nearly a month.
Today we are in the midst of a US presidential election year and the Paris Olympics. Since October 7, we have been faced with successive major events that have produced what they have produced without any real initiative or strategic vision on the horizon to resolve matters. As for the Middle East, we find that the region’s entities and their regional sponsors are walking like sleepwalkers. Steps and counter-steps are tactical in nature without a clear vision that promises to find solid ground for historic settlements. What appears today to be a shared desire to maintain the “rules of engagement” does not hide the fact that some of the parties that are stronger on the ground, and who benefit most from their close global relations, are deliberately escalating.
The Israeli leadership, for example, currently considers itself absolved of any commitment to peace that the ruling extreme right has never believed in. Moreover, the fact that this leadership assassinated Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of the Hamas movement, while the movement still holds a number of Israeli hostages, confirms for the thousandth time that the fate of the hostages is at the “bottom” of the list of priorities for Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters, who are determined to liquidate the Palestinians as a people, identity, and cause.
Elsewhere, much has been said about the “unity of arenas” in support of the Hamas movement, which has been translated over the past months into military operations, none of which can be said to be comparable to what Israel is committing in the Palestinian territories, including the Gaza Strip... nor to the Israeli strikes on Lebanon, inside Syria and Yemen, or the series of assassinations that are qualitatively escalating in the heart of the capitals of the “axis of resistance,” as Tehran’s tools like to call it.
This reality actually calls for redefining the terms “Axis of Resistance” and “Unity of Arenas,” especially since the contradiction is growing strongly between the tones of the earth-shattering speeches we hear... and their modest content. In fact, in most of these speeches, there is a clear qualitative change now. After phrases like “Eliminating Israel does not take more than 7 minutes,” which we heard a lot from Iranian leaders, today we hear strange words from Tehran’s “allies” like “Our goal is to prevent Israel from winning!”... In addition, the level of mutual trust between the components of the “Axis of Resistance” and the definition of the limits of escalation no longer seem as cohesive as before, including the levels of response to Israeli assassinations.
In fact, based on the reactions, both from Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah, it is very obvious that, despite the moral, political and security losses they have suffered, they do not want to be dragged into a confrontation deliberately orchestrated by Benjamin Netanyahu, who is empowered by Washington. The logical reason is that the top priority of the Iranian leadership is “coexistence” with Israel on terms acceptable and guaranteed by the United States... not waging a suicidal war against it.
Even Washington itself does not want to eliminate the Tehran regime, which it sees as having long-term strategic benefits. Here we recall that a number of American policy planners have previously said that Washington’s goal “is not to change the Tehran regime, but to change its behavior.” “Changing the behavior” of the regime, of course, includes its awareness of the limits given to it, and refraining from involvement in threatening Israel’s existence and vital interests. And speeches aside, this is exactly what the Iranian leadership and its affiliated forces and organizations have done in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria.

Finally, we come to what is happening in Syria...

Many are monitoring the situation in Syria today after the recent developments. They start with the multiple Israeli operations (including the assassinations of Iranian security leaders), to the circumstances of the disappearance of figures from the political scene who until recently were the talk of the town... even in positions very close to the head of power, and last but not least, the strange "silent" positions of the head of the Syrian regime regarding Operation "Noah's Flood", the escalation of the war on Gaza, and his reluctance even to offer condolences for the assassinations of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Fouad Shukr in the southern suburbs of Beirut.
Indeed, sources familiar with the inner workings of the Assad regime (father and son) believe that the regime is implicitly committed to the “1974 security understanding” with Israel, which includes preventing any party from using Syrian territory to threaten Israel’s security. Personally, I believe that Iran and its proxies, especially in Lebanon, understand this “realism” from a regime whose nature, character, and keenness to avoid violating the principles of “coexistence” with Israel in exchange for survival and continuity are well known.
Accordingly, in a time when “tactical calculations” have taken precedence over ideals and grand strategic visions, all players, except the naive among them, have become aware that talk is one thing and action is another. Hence, neither Iran is “Catholically” married to Moscow, nor are “resistance and defiance” durable commodities, nor are the borders of entities that were born arbitrarily and for the sake of interest capable of survival unless their owners adhere to the considerations that dictated their existence.
About the Middle East
----
In fact, based on the reactions, whether from Iran or the Lebanese Hezbollah, it is very obvious that, despite the losses they have suffered morally, politically and security-wise, they do not want to be dragged into a confrontation deliberately being waged by Benjamin Netanyahu, who is empowered by Washington.