In order to gain a deeper understanding of the situation between Israel and Iran, it would be helpful to look beyond the immediate responses of each side to the other's actions. I will do my best to clarify the story further so that we can gain a deeper understanding of the situation, envision potential outcomes, and identify the underlying factors.

First, we are witnessing the challenging process of a new regional order taking shape in the Middle East. Historically, the region was under Ottoman rule, which was marked by a certain degree of ferocity and tyranny. It later became the focal point of the Cold War between the Soviets and the Americans. To a large extent, the Cold War between the two international poles led to a certain degree of equilibrium in the region and a recognisable division of influence. Prior to the 1970s and 1980s, Russia had a presence in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt, and the United States had a presence in Jordan and the Gulf states.

In the wake of the Soviet Union's dissolution, the United States assumed control of Iraq, establishing a dominant presence in the region. However, the subsequent occupation of Afghanistan and the subsequent mistakes made in Iraq have prompted a rethink of the region's future. During the Obama administration, there was a growing sentiment that the United States should gradually withdraw from the region, beginning with Afghanistan, then China, and finally Iraq and Syria. This has led to a complex and nuanced question: it would be beneficial to consider who might be best suited to lead the region, given that it has been under Belgian governance for a century.

It is understandable that Americans are reluctant to see the playing field cleared for China, Iran, and Russia. Obama's intention was to leverage the Arab Spring revolutions as a means of deflecting regional attention from the Shiite-Sunni conflict, with the hope of diffusing it across the region. One approach to understanding the complex dynamics of the Arab world is to consider the ways in which different political Islamist currents shape the region's political landscape. In this view, the Arab countries can be seen as divided into two factions, one Sunni and one Shiite.

The Sunni faction is thought to be influenced by Turkey, an Atlantics country, while the Shiite Islamist current is led by Iran and its group, which includes Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. This approach contrasts with another view that suggests a Shiite Islamist current led by Iran and its group, which is represented by Hezbollah. But this led to further radicalisation. Al-Nusra and ISIS emerged, and it capitalised on it by forming the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF). It extended its influence to Yemen and Gaza.

While the situation has become more challenging, we are still committed to pursuing a resolution through continued dialogue and cooperation. At this point in time, we are faced with two distinct scenarios, each with its own set of considerations. These scenarios present a range of possibilities, from maintaining the status quo to exploring a collaborative approach to regional governance. If I might respectfully propose, the first axis is as follows: it could be said that the traditional Iranian axis is based on. It is worth noting that sectarian sentiment and traditional weapons and missile trajectories, despite their age, still pose a challenge.

The second is the so-called axis of moderation, which has evolved in recent times. It is based on the idea that we want peace with Israel, and we want to invest in the region. We also want to develop entertainment, tourism, the economy, green energy, and artificial intelligence. We want to end wars and enter the world of development. Iran, with its ideology, conviction, and quest for control, understands that if the other side wins the conflict and emerges victorious, it may face significant technological challenges and could potentially lose out on the opportunity to advance its position.

Iran has indicated that it may pursue the liberation of Jerusalem as a means of justifying its expansion in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. In response, Israel has highlighted the potential for an Iranian nuclear threat in the region, which it views as a concern for all Middle Eastern countries. In light of these considerations, it may be beneficial to explore avenues for free normalisation, while setting aside the Palestinian issue for the time being. It seems that, over the past two years, the region has become increasingly disillusioned with the narrow calculations on both sides. This challenging situation is likely to persist, given the prolonged absence of a strong American president.

It seems that former United States President Biden was beginning to reconsider his position on this matter, following the conclusion of an agreement with Iran. It is for this reason that Gulf states are exploring potential partnerships with China and Russia. Perhaps it would be constructive to suggest to America that any deal with Iran should not be made at the expense of the region as a whole. Unfortunately, it seems that America may have missed this opportunity. In recent years, a number of key countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have taken steps that have had a significant impact on the regional landscape. The UAE, for instance, has normalised relations with Israel in exchange for a halt to the annexation of land in the West Bank to Israel. I feel it is important to mention this. They began to express support for the Trump administration's plan.

I would like to take this opportunity to share the circumstances that have transpired. The Gulf states have conveyed to both parties, Iran and Israel, a message of neutrality and a desire for regional stability. They have encouraged both parties to resolve their differences independently. In light of these circumstances, the Gulf states have chosen to maintain their current policy of not opening their airspace to Israeli warplanes striking Iran. Furthermore, they declined to permit Iranian missiles to reach Israel, thereby indirectly assisting him. This neutrality proved challenging for both parties, as they were not accustomed to seeing Israel and Iran engage in conflict. It ultimately led to a direct confrontation and a redefinition of the regional order's established norms.

Iran has been known to employ a variety of instruments of force, including conventional weapons, missiles, drones, and militias. This approach was effective when used against a state army, but it proved less successful when employed against Israel's army, potentially due to the introduction of asymmetrical warfare dynamics within the system. Iran may not have fully appreciated the extent of the changes that had occurred since the Soviet Union and America were engaged in a nuclear arms race. The Americans, in a strategic move, shifted their focus to economic competition. They sought to gain access to Russian technology, which the Russians did not fully anticipate. This ultimately led to their downfall in the war.

We are witnessing a similar situation unfolding in the present moment. Israel has reached a new level of military capability, technological advancement, and intelligence penetration. The dynamics of battle have shifted, as many have observed, towards fourth and fifth generation warfare. Iran is facing challenges in reaching certain targets, particularly in light of the recent security and technological advancements.

This has led to concerns among some parties that if they wanted to reach certain individuals in Iran, they could potentially do so. We are now awaiting a response from Iran on how they intend to address these concerns. It seems unlikely that Iran will admit to having lost the war or to the potential for a deal with Saudi Arabia and a Palestinian state that would have been beneficial for all Palestinians. It seems that October 7 may have been an attempt by the Iranian side to create obstacles to the progress of the axis of moderation.

Trump's threats

Trump's recent statements have certainly caused anxiety. His ultimatum to Hamas to release the hostages or face "unprecedented consequences" has exacerbated an already volatile situation in the Middle East. This aggressive stance represents a significant shift from the more measured approach of the previous administration and signals a potential escalation of U.S. involvement in the region.

The immediate impact could be increased tensions and possibly even violence as both sides respond to the escalating rhetoric. Trump's assertive stance could encourage Israel to take action against Hamas, with the potential for retaliation from Hamas and its allies. This could lead to a cycle of escalation that would be difficult to control. In the long run, Trump's approach could redefine the relationship between the United States and the Middle East. His willingness to take bold, unilateral action could alienate some allies while emboldening adversaries. This could complicate diplomatic efforts and increase the risk of retaliatory violence, making it more difficult to achieve a lasting peace in the region.

Overall, while Trump's statements are meant to show strength and resolve, they also run the risk of exacerbating an already fragile situation, which could pave the way for further conflict and instability in the Middle East. The Middle East has always been a region of great geopolitical importance, and 2025 is no exception. Developments this year have set the stage for profound changes that are likely to shape the region over the next decade.