Mediators continue to work on a ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip, despite Hamas’s statement that it is not satisfied with the proposals made at the end of last week’s talks in Doha. The price is too high – the threat of a major regional war. Iran postponed its revenge on Israel for the murder of Hamas politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh to give the Gaza talks a chance, but did not abandon its plans. Both the Israeli leadership and the Iranian authorities have no good solutions.
Intermediaries don’t give up
“We are witnessing a destructive cycle of violence. One miscalculation and the situation risks degenerating into an even deeper and intractable conflict. This cycle, with its tendency to escalate, makes it difficult to move towards a political solution,” said a joint article by the French and British Foreign Ministers Stéphane Sejourné and David Lammy, published in the weekly newspaper The Observer following their visit to Israel at the end of last week. The two European foreign ministers have not made a joint trip since 2011, but the threat of a major war in the Middle East, which could involve not only regional players but also other countries, has forced them to present a united front.
Following the European diplomats, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived in Israel, from where he is going to Egypt. Further plans are still unknown. This is his ninth trip to the Middle East region since the tragic events of October 7, 2023. And in fact, this is the last chance for the Joe Biden administration to achieve an end to the war in the Gaza Strip, and with it – a lull on the Lebanese-Israeli border and a reduction in escalation between Iran and Israel. In fact, this is the vision of the United States and its European partners, presented to the main Middle Eastern players: an agreement on a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip as the price for Iran and Hezbollah to refuse revenge on Israel for the murder of Hamas Politburo chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and the liquidation of Hezbollah military leader Fuad Shukr in Beirut.
Let us recall that the ceasefire talks began last Thursday in Doha and are to continue this week in Cairo, after which the negotiators planned to return to the Qatari capital. The Israeli negotiating team is participating in the meetings along with representatives of the mediating countries – the United States, Qatar and Egypt. Hamas has refused to attend, but most of the movement’s politburo is still in Doha, and contacts with Cairo are not a problem. In any case, the talks between the Hamas and Israeli delegations would not be direct. Therefore, from a technical point of view, the absence of the Hamas delegation is not critical. But it has a symbolic meaning – Hamas is raising the stakes and is not ready to discuss any compromise solutions that could result in the resumption of hostilities and the continued presence of Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip. In fact, Hamas is fighting for its survival and maintaining control over the sector, shifting the blame for the breakdown of negotiations to Israel, or rather to Benjamin Netanyahu, playing on the split in Israeli society and discontent with the Israeli prime minister in the West. Unlike Israel, the Hamas leadership has nothing to lose, especially after Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind and organizer of the October 7 terrorist attack, became the head of the movement’s politburo.
On Sunday, Hamas confirmed that it was not satisfied with the proposals submitted by the mediators following the Doha talks. It was stated that Netanyahu was stalling for time and putting forward new conditions for the deal. All this does not inspire optimism about the prospects for reaching an agreement. But the mediators are not going to give up working with the parties to the conflict.
Tehran’s Tough Choice
Against this background, Iran’s position is critical. Although it is far from obvious who has the decisive vote – Tehran or Hamas. It looks like Hamas is ready to drag Iran into a war against Israel. It will certainly not be worse for them. Unlike Iran.
The Iranian authorities are faced with a difficult choice: a major war with unpredictable consequences on the one hand, and the need to save face, that is, not to let Israel have the last word. It is also important for Tehran to maintain control over its proxy forces in the region, which has clearly not been easy lately.
Even before the talks in Doha, Tehran made it clear that it was ready to give a chance to the ceasefire deal in the Gaza Strip. Iranian authorities are well aware that a major war will inevitably come to their territory. Washington has increased its military presence in the region and is making it very clear who will be responsible for the escalation. “The United States continues to monitor attack planning by Iran and its proxies and is well-positioned throughout the region to protect Israel and protect U.S. personnel and facilities,” U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Friday after a phone call with his Israeli counterpart Yoav Galant.
The ceasefire deal in Gaza is a good pretext to end the escalation and save face by presenting all this as concern for the welfare of the Palestinians. But again, the deal must suit Hamas so that this movement and other “resistance forces” can confidently declare their victory over Israel. What this means for Israel is not even worth explaining. But we are talking about Iran.
Another question is how long Tehran is prepared to wait. Last week, Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed Al Thani spoke twice by phone with Iran’s acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani, urging the Iranian authorities to refrain from escalation while negotiations on Gaza are ongoing. At this stage, it is working. Late last week, The New York Times, citing its sources, reported that after the Qatari prime minister’s calls, Iran and Hezbollah lowered the readiness level of their missile units. However, it was immediately emphasized that the situation is changing very quickly, as are its assessments. The fact that Hamas is not happy with what is happening opens a window of opportunity for Tehran; the Iranians can change their minds at any moment.
Judging by publications in both Iranian and regional media, there is no unity in Iranian political circles. There are disputes about whether or not to respond to Israel, how and when. The last two questions are more pressing.
Last week, the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida, citing sources in the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported that Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi movement Ansar Allah, and pro-Iraqi Shiite groups were demanding decisive action from Tehran and were not willing to wait. This has left Iran concerned that its proxies would launch attacks without coordination with it, presenting Tehran with a fait accompli. In fact, this is exactly what Hamas did on October 7. But now the situation is even more dangerous, and Iran will bear direct responsibility for the actions of its proxies.
One of the topics of discussion in the region is the position of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who directly determines what Iran will do. Last Wednesday, Khamenei said that any non-tactical retreat – be it military, political or economic – would bring “divine wrath.” He also criticized the habit of exaggerating the capabilities of the enemy to instill fear, and made it clear that Iran will not back down. All this sounds very clear-cut, but the Middle East follows its own logic. Some Iranian and Arab media interpreted Khamenei’s words about the inadmissibility of a non-tactical retreat as a readiness to do just that – retreat temporarily.
Justifying the pause in their actions, the Iranian authorities are trying in every way to demonstrate that they are thus waging a “psychological war” against Israel, and that it is supposedly quite successful. In particular, this was discussed during Friday sermons in Iran. At the same time, promises were made that revenge against Israel would be carried out. The thesis was also voiced that “the price of humiliation due to the lack of response exceeds the price of revenge.”
At the same time, Iran’s reformist press defended the “decision not to respond” because “it would enhance Iran’s prestige in the region and further isolate Israel.” The reformist newspaper Etemad suggested that Iran might show restraint and forego retaliation in order to extract concessions from the West. At the same time, experts suggest that the constant calls for revenge from conservative media and Iran’s top officials – chief among them Khamenei – mean that Tehran is unlikely to opt for silence.