Analysis | The Middle East in Deadlock

The ground did not shake when IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir repeated twice his warning that the army “will collapse inward due to an unreasonable burden on those serving.” Such a statement from the military’s top commander should have sent citizens and reservists, many of whom have already served hundreds of reserve days, into the streets, demanding full conscription of all those obligated to serve.

The Chief of Staff did not elaborate on his remarks, which are almost alarming, but they can be understood in light of developments such as the halving of the number of soldiers assigned to a community that was nearly destroyed on October 7. 

Zamir’s message implies that, for the first time in Israel’s history, troops are deployed in Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, along all borders including Egypt and Jordan. The IDF must train, run courses, prepare for war, repair and renew equipment, from tanks to aircraft, and improve intelligence. The army chief needs thousands more good soldiers.

Unfortunately, there is no sign that IDF recruitment centers will soon be filled with thousands of eligible conscripts who have so far not enlisted. In other words, on this critical issue, we are stuck.

In the Middle Eastern arena, several groups of actors are at play: two democratic states– the United States and Israel; Shiite Iran; and two terrorist organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas. Further afield are the Gulf states, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan, and even farther away, Russia and China, where Trump is visiting this week.

All of these actors are entangled in regional, global, and personal interests, full of internal contradictions, a tangle that no one seems able to untie. As a result, the situation is stuck in deadlock, or an impass. 

A brief summary of interests follows.

US President Trump faces midterm elections in November. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces elections for the Knesset this year. Amid all the tweets and statements, it is unclear what Trump truly wants, though there are opponents of war within his party and administration. China will not provide him salvation.

The US and Israel continue to adhere to the principle that “Iran will never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.” Yet no official or military expert has explained how exactly to remove the 460 kilograms of enriched uranium from Iran. Perhaps by the method used in the “nuclear archive” operation in Tehran.

In a conflict over the Strait of Hormuz, it is unclear who is actually blockading whom. Ships continue to pass, though not all, and many are trapped at sea. At the same time, naval forces from the US, France, and Britain are gathering near the strait, while the Iranians threaten with miniature submarines armed with torpedoes.

The phrase “disarmament” is widely used but lacks operational meaning. Everyone talks about disarming Hezbollah and Hamas and opposing Iranian nuclear weapons—but no expert has explained how this would actually be done. Would they politely be asked to hand over their weapons? Or would wars resume in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran? Here too there is disagreement: Israel prefers to continue military operations, while the US president hesitates, avoids war, and prefers “making a deal.”

Conclusion: the situation is stuck. Uranium remains in Iran’s possession. The Revolutionary Guards are more radical and anti-Israel than their predecessors. The Supreme Leader’s successor remains absent. Hamas in Gaza is strengthening its civilian control and recruitment. It seems Washington has somewhat forgotten Gaza.

In Lebanon, has Hezbollah been destroyed or not? Residents in the north live in fear of drones and fiber-optic UAVs. Lebanon’s president openly expresses willingness to talk with Israel but avoids meeting Trump for fear of Hezbollah. Israel continues responding with fire to ceasefire violations, and the IDF has already crossed the Litani River.

Conclusion: stagnation. From the north to the Gaza periphery, there are no solutions in sight. Reservists continue to report for duty, and the Chief of Staff warns that the army is “collapsing inward.”

What is missing in this political and strategic maze is an almost crude word: a political horizon. A bold, innovative diplomatic initiative. Perhaps an Israeli prime minister meeting Lebanon’s president in a Sadat–Begin-style breakthrough – talking openly, without fear, in Beirut, Jerusalem, or Paris.

Or a US initiative to convene Abraham Accords states, Egypt and Jordan, to create an international force (Indonesia? the Philippines?) deployed in Gaza and along the Israel–Lebanon border, empowered to prevent Hezbollah from approaching or firing rockets. A quiet border, normal life in Manara and Kiryat Shmona.

Continue negotiations with Iran. They are experts at bargaining and delaying, and Trump knows how to make deals. Enriched uranium could be moved to Swiss vaults, and with effort a timeline compromise could be reached. Perhaps there are those in Tehran who understand why compromise is in their interest before Tehran ends up looking like Gaza.

This is a possible trajectory even in this fractured region. It was so between Israel and Egypt and Jordan, and so with the Abraham Accords. Who would have believed Israel now supplies weapons systems to Arab-Muslim states? Persistence is needed, and refusal to give up. Leaders like Begin, Sadat, and Rabin once existed – strong, bold, courageous leaders with public backing. What is needed now are, forgive the expression – peacemakers.