Solving Middle East crisis needs real commitment to lasting peace

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told his Cabinet that Israel does not accept US President Donald Trump's 15-point plan for Gaza. Just days after Trump proclaimed that his Peace Board had secured a "HISTORIC agreement" for Hamas' complete disarmament, Netanyahu said Israeli forces will not leave Gaza until Hamas is "genuinely disarmed".

Trump's Gaza plan is not yet a peace plan; it is a holding maneuver — an attempt to de-escalate tensions with Iran while demonstrating that Washington is trying to solve the Gaza crisis. Compared with earlier US proposals, it clearly signals greater pressure on Israel.

But Netanyahu, facing a political battle that could cost him power at home, has every incentive to look uncompromising. An Iranian AI animation depicting Israel as two heavy stones chained to the US' feet and dragging it into the deep carries an uncomfortable truth: Washington's grip on its closest regional ally is weaker than it pretends.

Meanwhile, something potentially more consequential is taking shape elsewhere. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkiye have signed the Mecca Joint Defense Agreement, signaling to Tehran and other regional actors that the Middle East's balance is shifting. The pact reflects growing doubts about the United States' security umbrella that has underpinned Gulf stability for decades.

For Iran, the emerging alignment might present a strategic challenge. It creates a stronger Sunni security bloc. Turkiye's foreign minister has suggested that Egypt might join, potentially creating a security network stretching from the Mediterranean to the Arabian Sea.

The most intriguing part is Turkiye. As a NATO member, Ankara insists the new arrangement is complementary to, not a substitute for, its original alliance commitments. Perhaps legally. Strategically, however, it is unmistakably a hedge. Turkiye is using its dual identity — as a NATO ally and a major player in the Muslim world — to widen its room to play a bigger role in the Middle East.

For Washington, the significance is hard to miss. Three regional partners have created their own defense mechanism. It seems regional countries increasingly believe they must hedge against US unreliability.

Then there is the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's most powerful bargaining chip. Tehran knows the economic pressure created by prolonged disruption, the constraints on US missile-interceptor stocks and the political sensitivity of high energy prices ahead of midterm elections. The Supreme National Security Council of Iran has demanded that Washington change its behavior, end the conflict, lift the blockade, compensate Iran for wartime damage and release frozen assets unconditionally. That is not the posture of a country negotiating from weakness. It is the posture of one that believes time may work in its favor.

Whatever Israel's tactical gains in Lebanon and Gaza or the US' oil benefits, they pale beside a long-term crisis, compounded by Washington's limited leverage over Israel and the region's deep fractures.

What we are witnessing is therefore more than another Middle East crisis. It is a structural realignment. The old order — the US as security guarantor — is gradually fraying.

Striking Tehran has clearly opened a Pandora's box. Trump and Netanyahu may have believed that attacking Iran would restore deterrence, reaffirm US power and consolidate Israel's geopolitical gains. Instead, they may have demonstrated its limits.

The Middle East is becoming a multipolar chessboard, with regional players making moves not necessarily in coordination with Washington, but increasingly to hedge against it.

That might prove to be the real strategic loss for the US. The regional security architecture it has painstakingly built over decades is weakened not just by "hostile powers", but also by allies and partners which no longer believe the old guarantees are sufficient.

When friends start rebuilding their own defense pacts without you, they have not necessarily become your enemies. They have simply stopped believing you can protect them. And no "historic" peace plan can restore trust once that belief is gone.

Tackling the Middle East's increasingly complex crises requires not just words, but a steadfast dedication to building a durable peace.