TEHRAN – Last week, Iran played a strategic role in defending its territorial integrity, as well as the security and interests of other nations in the region against Israeli aggression and threats.

The visit by the Iranian Foreign Minister to Lebanon underscores a pivotal moment, suggesting that now is the time for a ceasefire and move toward de-escalation.

Despite discussions within Western circles regarding Israel's actions—including allegations of crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and violations of the territorial integrity of countries like Iran and Lebanon—Israel continues to act with impunity. 

In practice, Israel operates as if it were the 51st state of the United States and a de facto member of NATO, disregarding both genuine and performative criticisms. Regional countries, whether out of fear or other reasons, are unable to confront Israel or continue the path of reconciliation. Terror and profound uncertainty prevail over the region, and time works against the nations therein.

Recent events, starting from the outbreak of October 7, 2024, have exposed the fragility of efforts to normalize relations between Israel and several Arab states. Despite previous U.S.-brokered agreements aimed at improving ties, such as the Abraham Accords, the persistence of Israeli military actions in Lebanon and Palestine has rekindled Resistance and undermined the viability of normalization. 

This sentiment was reflected in Israeli Prime Minister’s speech at the 2024 United Nations General Assembly, where he acknowledged that Israel is grappling with an existential crisis and admitted the failure of the normalization strategy over the past year (UNGA, 2024).

It appears that after Iran's operation on Tuesday, October 1, 2024, the myth of Israel's invincibility has been shattered. Now, assuming that Israel functions as the 51st state of the United States, the U.S. must reach a new balance and agreement, even if short-term, with Iran and the countries of the region to adjust its new strategy based on the current realities on the ground. 

A critical point in this regard is the perception of regional countries regarding recent developments. The remarks made by Jordan's King at the UN General Assembly reflect new insights from an Arab leader, previously accused of compromising with Israel, about the threat Israel poses to the existence of his country.

Other Arab nations in the region had abandoned the policy of confrontation with Israel following defeats in the Six-Day War of 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Furthermore, some of them had recently sought to normalize their relations with Israel. However, they have now realized that implementing this policy is not feasible. 

These countries, which often did not have positive relations with the Resistance Front and were willing to declare practical neutrality in the past year, are now unable to remain silent in the face of Israel's actions. Continuing neutrality is untenable in the court of Arab public opinion and under the pressure of their populations. 

Nevertheless, we should not overstate our assessment of recent events. Israel remains the creation of the victorious powers of the First and Second World Wars, who continue to support it. Therefore, we must also pay attention to this reality. However, an apartheid state cannot continue forever.

The visit by Iran's President Pezeshkian to Qatar immediately after Iran's retaliatory operation signaled a clear shift in regional power dynamics. It underscored Iran’s role as a critical stakeholder in regional stability. It conveyed a clear message about the need for the member states of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to change their positions regarding Israel and Iran. Iran extended an olive branch when the southern Persian Gulf states were in a precarious situation vis-à-vis Israel. It was a significant and positive event in this historic moment. 

The subsequent meeting between the Iranian Foreign Minister and the ministers of the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states demonstrated Iran’s intention to strengthen diplomatic ties and to advocate for a unified regional stance against external threats (GCC Summit Report, 2024). Such efforts indicate Iran’s strategy to fill the diplomatic void left by previous U.S.-led initiatives.

The Iranian Foreign Minister’s recent visit to Lebanon, coinciding with the presence of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution during Friday prayers, and his emphasis on protecting the security and national interests of Iran and other countries in the region, suggests that the primary objective is not merely to support Hezbollah but to lay the groundwork for a broader ceasefire agreement. 

Lebanon’s acceptance of a ceasefire, as announced by its Foreign Minister in an interview with CNN, signals a potential opening for a diplomatic resolution. The Lebanese Foreign Minister announced that Lebanon had agreed to a ceasefire. "We were fully accepted in Lebanon. We consulted with Hezbollah," he stated. 

The Speaker of Parliament, Nabih Berri, had consulted with Hezbollah on the verge of accepting full implementation. "We informed the Americans and the French that this was the case, and they told us that [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu had agreed to the statement of the two presidents [of the United States and France] on the ceasefire." 

Although Netanyahu hypocritically committed the crimes of bombing Dahiya and causing the martyrdom of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah to complicate ceasefire negotiations, there remains an opportunity for the international community—particularly the United States and France—to broker an agreement. Given the regional and global stakes, this opportunity mustn't be missed.

The Middle East is at a critical juncture. While difficult, a ceasefire remains the most viable option for stabilizing the region and preventing further escalation. For the United States, recalibrating its strategy and engaging in diplomatic initiatives that consider the legitimate concerns of regional actors like Iran and Lebanon is crucial. The future of regional stability hinges not just on military might but on meaningful diplomatic engagement and respect for the sovereignty of all nations involved.