��������

Years of experience have taught me to be cautious about two events that invariably dominate the news: a US presidential election year, and major global sports events, such as the World Cup and the Olympics, which capture public attention for about a month.

This year, we have a US presidential election and have just had the Paris Olympics. Since Oct. 7, a series of major events has unfolded rapidly, with significant consequences, but no real efforts or strategic plans to resolve them.

In the Middle East, it seems the region’s players and their regional backers are moving without clear direction. Their actions are mostly tactical, lacking any clear vision for lasting solutions.

What appears to be a mutual effort to maintain “rules of engagement” barely hides the reality that some stronger players, benefiting from global ties, are escalating tensions.

Israel’s leadership feels unbound by any commitment to a peace process that the ruling far right has never genuinely supported.

The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, even while Hamas holds Israeli hostages, highlights that the captives’ fate is not a top priority for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters, who are focused on dismantling the Palestinian people, their identity, and their cause.

Tehran must understand its limits, and avoid threatening Israel’s existence. 

Eyad Abu Shakra

Meanwhile, there has been much talk about the “unity of the fronts” in support of Hamas, reflected in recent military actions.

However, none of these actions compares to what Israel has done in the Occupied Territories, including Gaza, or to its strikes in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, or the increasingly sophisticated assassinations in the capitals of what Tehran’s allies call the “Axis of Resistance.”

This situation requires a rethinking of the terms “Axis of Resistance” and “unity of the fronts,” especially as the gap between the intense rhetoric and the actual substance grows wider.

At one time, we heard Iranian leaders claim that “eliminating Israel would take just seven minutes.” Now, Tehran’s allies are making strange statements, such as “our goal is to prevent Israel from winning.”

Moreover, the trust and coordination within the “Axis of Resistance” seem to be weakening, particularly in their responses to Israeli assassinations.

It is clear from the reactions of Iran and Hezbollah that despite suffering significant losses, both are avoiding the confrontation that Netanyahu, supported by Washington, seems to be seeking.

The reason is simple: Iran’s leadership is more focused on “coexisting” with Israel under US-guaranteed terms, rather than engaging in a suicidal war.

Even Washington does not want to dismantle the Tehran regime, seeing long-term strategic benefits in its survival. US policymakers have often said that the goal is not to change Iran’s regime, but to change its behavior.

This means Tehran must understand its limits, and avoid threatening Israel’s existence or vital interests. In practice, this is exactly what Iran and its allies in Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria have done.

There is an unusual silence from Syria’s leadership regarding the war in Gaza. 

Eyad Abu Shakra

Now, let’s look at Syria...

Many are watching Syria closely after recent events. These include multiple Israeli operations, such as assassinations of Iranian leaders, and the mysterious disappearance of key political figures close to the Syrian regime.

There is also the unusual silence from Syria’s leadership regarding the events of Oct. 7 and the escalating war in Gaza, including the lack of condolences for the assassinations of Haniyeh in Tehran and Fuad Shukr in Beirut’s southern suburbs.

Sources familiar with the Assad regime, both under the father and the son, believe it remains committed to the 1974 security agreement with Israel, which prevents any group from using Syrian territory to threaten Israel.

I believe that Iran and its allies, especially in Lebanon, seem to understand this “reality” from a regime they know well — one that prioritizes “coexistence” with Israel to ensure its survival.

At a time when “tactical moves” overshadow ideals and grand strategies, most players, except the naive, recognize that words and actions often do not match.

Iran is not tied to Moscow for life, the “resistance” narrative is not built to last, and the borders of entities born out of convenience will survive only if their creators stick to the realities that shaped them.

• Eyad Abu Shakra is managing editor of Asharq Al-Awsat. X: @eyad1949. This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.