This is not primarily about diplomacy. It is about fear, power and survival.
The war surrounding Iran has already begun to alter the balance of power in the Middle East in a manner few foresaw only a few years ago. What previously appeared politically impossible is now becoming realistic: a new regional alliance in which Arab Gulf states are drawing closer to Israel, not out of ideological conviction, but out of necessity. This is not primarily about diplomacy. It is about fear, power and survival.
A new regional axis
For several decades, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf have lived with a constant concern regarding Iranian expansion. Through militias, ideological influence and direct threats, the Iranian regime has sought to extend its influence far beyond its own borders. The conflict we are now witnessing has made this fear more concrete than ever before. The result is a gradual, yet distinct, rapprochement with Israel. Countries that previously stood on opposite sides now perceive a common enemy. This may become a driving force for more Arab countries joining the Abraham Accords. Not because historical conflicts have been forgotten, but because today’s threat landscape compels new realities.
The Middle East is in the process of being redrawn, not by idealism, but by strategic choices.
And why negotiations are not possible
At the same time, a decisive question is being posed: Why can the Iranian regime not negotiate with the United States? The answer lies in the ideological foundation of the regime. This is not a traditional political system that seeks compromises in order to secure stability. It is a system built upon a religious and ideological conviction in which conflict with the West, particularly the United States and Israel, forms part of its very identity. For the regime, genuine negotiations would entail a weakening of this identity. Entering into compromises would not merely be a political choice, but an ideological defeat. Therefore, we see a dual communication: signals of dialogue outwardly, while the actual power internally rejects any genuine negotiated solution. Power does not lie with those who speak, but with those who control the weapons.
Can the regime survive all this?
The third question is the most decisive: Can the Iranian regime survive the current situation? In the short term, the answer may be yes. The regime still retains control through military power, surveillance and fear. The Revolutionary Guard has consolidated its position and cracked down harshly on all opposition. But in the longer term, the picture is more uncertain.
A regime can survive external pressure. What is far more difficult to survive is a people that no longer believes in the system. After 47 years of oppression, economic crisis and political stagnation, trust between the state and the population has broken down. When a regime loses its legitimacy, even the strongest military control becomes vulnerable. History has demonstrated this time and again: when fear is no longer stronger than hope, systems begin to collapse.
A region at a turning point
What is now taking place is more than a war. It is a transformation of the entire region. Old images of the enemy are being dismantled, new alliances are emerging, and a regime that for decades has been a central actor is facing perhaps its greatest challenge. The Middle East is moving towards a turning point. The question is not merely who wins or loses in this conflict. The question is what comes afterwards: a more stable and cooperative Middle East, or an even deeper and more destructive conflict.
One thing is certain: Nothing will be as it was before.