LONDON - Under Trump, the U.S. initially sought to pause the war on Gaza in hopes of reaching a negotiated settlement and assessing possible solutions. However, when it became clear that the Palestinian resistance remained strong and could not be sidelined, the U.S. recognized that the Western position in negotiations was weak.

The resistance in Gaza had the upper hand, asserting its stance without yielding to Western pressure. In response, the U.S. allowed Netanyahu to resume strikes on Gaza, aiming to exert pressure on the resistance. However, Trump will learn as previous administrations have learned, no amount of military destruction can force the resistance into submission.

This strategy also relies on inflicting maximum devastation on Gaza’s population, hoping to force them into migration or turn them against the resistance. Yet, this approach will prove futile, as the Palestinian people have consistently rejected displacement and remained steadfast in their land.

Beyond Gaza, the resistance fronts in Yemen and Iran, have demonstrated resilience. The West, which expects compliance, is instead met with firm rejection. A key takeaway is that if Iran had simply yielded to Trump’s demands under threats, the entire regional landscape would shift. However, Trump, driven by his ego, struggles to take “no” for an answer. This rejection, coupled with military capabilities and regional instability, keeps the situation open until Trump acknowledges that resistance is unwavering.

Despite his aggressive stance, Trump seeks to avoid direct military confrontation. His decision to strike Yemen instead of Iran serves as proof—choosing a weaker target to send a message rather than engaging the stronger force directly. This suggests that the U.S. is hesitant to escalate against Iran, yet it underestimates Yemen’s resilience. Trump will soon learn that Yemen, like others in the resistance axis, will not back down.

The U.S. is actively shaping conditions to benefit the Israeli occupation. If Netanyahu were to fall, it could destabilize the entire occupation structure, as no other leader is positioned to take such extreme measures. To secure his government, Netanyahu has managed to pass the approval for the state budget in the Knesset due to resuming the war, even reinstating figures like Ben Gvir to maintain his grip on power.

The region’s future landmarks remain uncertain— in addition to Israel’s territorial boundaries, its control, and its ability to sustain dominance. The occupation relies primarily on destructive power, intelligence capabilities for targeted assassinations, and media influence. However, it avoids direct ground invasions, knowing it cannot succeed against entrenched resistance. This strategy is evident across Gaza, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, where threats persist from both Israel and Syria.

Regarding Syria, while its government faces instability and the terrorism elements within are not favored by Trump, it remains a useful tool for intervention in Lebanon and Iraq. The Trump administration is likely to push for a compliant government in Syria—one that aligns with its interests but is not labeled as "terrorist."

In Lebanon, the resistance is maintaining a low profile for now while preparing itself for future confrontations. The Israeli occupation entity has no justification for direct confrontation, nor is it able to.

Regionally, the momentum continues to favor the resistance axis. Israel’s internal contradictions prevent it from waging large-scale wars, limiting its strategy to destruction rather than any full and meaningful military confrontation.

Ultimately, the region remains open to various possibilities. With patience and steadfastness, the resistance will continue to strengthen, shaping the future on its own terms.