By Marwan Emile Toubassi*
The developments unfolding in the Middle East today may not be attributable solely to Iran’s deterrence capabilities, but also to the United States’ concern over the possibility of a broader regional war that could threaten its strategic interests and military presence across the region, as well as disrupt energy markets, global trade routes, and the international financial system.
While the United States continues to oppose the Palestinian people’s right to freedom and national independence and maintains Israel as a key strategic ally for reasons previously discussed in earlier articles, it simultaneously views regional stability, from its own perspective, as an integral component of its broader strategic interests. From this standpoint, Washington may seek to restrain the behavior of both allies and adversaries whenever escalation risks slipping beyond control and jeopardizing regional and international balances, as well as its efforts to preserve its global influence and security architecture.
In this context, Israel’s continued military operations in Gaza and Lebanon, coupled with its reluctance to engage in a large-scale confrontation with Iran, may reflect the limits of military power under current circumstances, the complexity of deterrence calculations, and domestic Israeli considerations related to political divisions, the growing costs of prolonged wars, and the difficulty of achieving a stable strategic outcome.
At the same time, Washington appears increasingly inclined to manage crises rather than reshape the region through decisive interventions or imposed arrangements. Reports of indirect negotiations or preliminary understandings between the United States and Iran are consistent with this trend, suggesting a growing preference for containing tensions through temporary diplomatic mechanisms within a framework of conflict management rather than conflict resolution.
On the broader regional and international levels, the Middle East appears to be entering a phase distinct from that of previous decades. Several interconnected developments stand out:
The declining ability of the United States to impose political outcomes unilaterally, as it did during the post-Cold War era.
The rise of influential regional powers such as Iran and Türkiye, albeit with differing roles and capacities.
The expanding role of Russia and China in the Middle East amid increasing international competition.
The ongoing war in Gaza and the limits it has exposed regarding the ability of military force to impose lasting political solutions.
The growing influence of non-governmental movements and actors in shaping regional conflicts.
The preference of major international and regional powers to avoid a large-scale war.
These developments do not necessarily indicate a decisive shift in the balance of power. Rather, they point to a state of uneasy equilibrium in which no actor can fully impose its will. Even traditional powers and Israel, as an expansionist state, face a more complex strategic environment that limits their ability to transform military superiority into sustainable political outcomes.
Recent experiences in Gaza, Lebanon, and the confrontations involving Iran demonstrate that military power alone is no longer sufficient to produce lasting political settlements. The gap between the ability to employ force and the ability to translate it into durable strategic gains continues to widen.
From another perspective, these transformations have direct implications for the Palestinian cause. On one hand, they may open space for greater international pluralism and reduce the United States’ monopoly over the political process. On the other hand, they may encourage approaches aimed at managing the conflict rather than resolving it through long-term security, humanitarian, or transitional arrangements.
Here lies the central challenge. The Palestinian question remains fundamentally a national liberation struggle based on ending the occupation and realizing the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. It is not merely an administrative, security, or economic issue to be managed indefinitely. In the absence of a genuine political solution, attempts at containment may become another mechanism for preserving the status quo.
Nevertheless, no international transformation, regardless of its magnitude, can substitute for Palestinian political will, a unified national vision, and a clear liberation project capable of utilizing regional and international developments. History demonstrates that major geopolitical shifts do not automatically deliver results; rather, outcomes depend on the ability of peoples and political movements to transform them into political opportunities.
Ultimately, we are not witnessing a decisive transfer of power, but rather a complex transitional phase in which the ability of major powers to impose outcomes is diminishing, Israel’s deterrence advantage is being increasingly tested, and policies of crisis management and balance maintenance are becoming more prominent.
The central Palestinian challenge, therefore, is to move from being a passive recipient of change to becoming an active force capable of influencing and shaping developments, rather than merely adapting to them, in a manner that advances the end of occupation and the realization of national rights, foremost among them the right to self-determination.
* Member of the Advisory Council of Fatah Movement
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.