Researcher: Middle East ceasefire understandings not lasting solutions

Ceasefire understandings in the Middle East appear particularly fragile, as de-escalation continues to collide with renewed escalation, raising questions about their ability to evolve into lasting political settlements amid ongoing tensions between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Hamas, the United States and Iran, and other parties.

In this context, researcher and professor at China's Shanxi University and Britain's University of Exeter, Sivan Saeed, says the understandings reached between the warring parties in the Middle East — whether between Hamas and Israel, Hezbollah and Israel, the Lebanese government and Israel, Iran and the United States, or Syria and Israel — do not rise to the level of "agreements" that bring conflicts to an end. Rather, they are ceasefire understandings reached amid a lack of consensus on the main causes of the conflicts and continuing clashes of interests among the parties.

Saeed says the causes of conflict remain in place as a result of major and minor competing interests among the parties. He explains that the interests of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas differ fundamentally from those of Israel, and that none of the parties appears willing to give up its interests.

"No one will give up their interests, and there is no possibility of making concessions. Therefore, there is only an agreement on a ceasefire," he says.

Temporary Understandings to Buy Time

The researcher says these understandings face major challenges, most notably the lack of sufficient guarantees for their implementation, as well as the absence of clear enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the parties comply with them. This makes them closer to temporary arrangements than political settlements capable of ending the conflict.

Saeed believes the parties use ceasefire agreements to buy time and rearrange balances of power and alliances, saying: "All the agreements are aimed at buying time to form new alliances."

According to the researcher, maintaining a state of suspended understandings may serve the interests of several parties that do not want the existing situation to collapse suddenly because of the potentially far-reaching regional consequences.

Saeed says that the fall of the Iranian regime, if it occurs, could have major repercussions across the region, warning that the consequences could extend to Iraq, which, in his assessment, could become a "swamp of blood."

He adds that changing the map of the Middle East "is not that easy," as influential states continue to preserve a degree of balance and benefit from the continuation of the status quo.

Peace Does Not Align with Israel's Interests

Saeed says that even if Hamas or Hezbollah were eliminated, this would not necessarily mean an end to conflict in the region, as Israel could continue confronting other parties and might become involved in new conflicts in the future, including a potential conflict with Turkey.

"Even if Hezbollah ends, there will be no peace, because, in my view, Israel does not want peace, and peace does not serve its interests," Saeed says.

The researcher believes achieving lasting peace in the region may conflict with the nature of Israeli interests, explaining that "Israel's presence in the region is based on war, not peace."

Conflicting Influence Threatens Any Settlement

Saeed stresses that conflicting regional and international interests, along with the absence of guarantees and enforcement mechanisms, are among the main factors preventing ceasefire understandings from becoming stable and sustainable settlements.

He cites relations among Syria, Turkey and Israel as an example, explaining that even if Syria's transitional government Prime Minister Ahmed al-Sharaa reaches a comprehensive agreement with Israel, the struggle for influence between Israel and Turkey could hinder its implementation.

He says Israel considers the establishment of Turkish bases in northwestern Syria a "red line," while Turkey likewise considers any Israeli move in Idlib or Qamishlo a "red line."

According to Saeed, the continuation of these red lines and conflicting interests among regional and international powers leaves any agreement vulnerable to obstruction, keeping the region with temporary arrangements to halt fighting rather than political settlements that address the root causes of the conflicts.

a.k

ANHA