The Middle East has historically been a stage for conflicts, some of which have led to wars that no country in the region, nor the major powers, were entirely shielded from. These past wars had clear and known causes, and they spanned periods of time, whether short or long, with countries as the primary participants. Some of these wars had long-lasting impacts that are still felt today, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which significantly affected the regional security system, particularly the traditional balance of power.

Since October 7, 2023, the regional and global discourse has been unified around one key message: the need to prevent the expansion of the conflict and avoid the outbreak of a full-scale war. Official statements from all sides have stressed that no one desires such a war. However, what is happening on the ground has led many writers to describe the current state in various terms, such as “open war,” “blitzkrieg,” or “limited war.” These are accurate descriptions and more dangerous than direct full-scale wars, as the latter would eventually clarify the real balance of power among the different parties. The current situation, especially with Hezbollah entering the fray following the confirmation of the death of its secretary-general, can be described as a futile war for several reasons. First, there are no clear and specific objectives that, if achieved, would end the war. Instead, everyone speaks of achieving security in a specific area, but within a zero-sum equation—where one side’s security is achieved by eliminating the other, which is an impossible task in all conflicts witnessed in different parts of the world. Second, the confrontations are not between states but between states and non-state groups, which has become a characteristic of many conflicts in the Middle East. Apart from the situation in Palestine, the countries of the region must recognize that these groups have become part of the conflict equation, whether in neighboring countries or in regional relations more broadly. There is no international consensus on these groups; some countries see them as political movements, while others classify some of them as terrorist organizations. Third, the impact of these chronic confrontations on civilians is evident in the rising numbers of dead, injured, and displaced.

In my view, the primary mission of all regional and international powers is not only to stop these futile confrontations but also to preserve the regional balance of power. What is currently happening in the region, with its various manifestations, is fundamentally an attempt to shift the balance of power in favor of certain parties. The region’s states understand that the way out of these confrontations lies in finding a comprehensive and just solution to the Palestinian issue in accordance with UN resolutions. This was reflected in the announcement by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan of the launch of the “International Coalition to Implement the Two-State Solution” during the ministerial meeting on the Palestinian issue on the sidelines of the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. This call is of great importance, both in content and timing, as Saudi Arabia is the originator of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which aimed to end the Arab-Israeli conflict.

On the international side, major powers also bear a responsibility to put an end to this conflict to prevent it from escalating further and impacting everyone’s interests. Asymmetric wars do not benefit states, as evidenced by the prolonged confrontation with the Houthi group, which has lasted nearly a year without tangible results on the ground. While the frequency of attacks on maritime navigation has decreased, these attacks have not been completely halted, and there remains a capacity to sink ships and threaten unprecedented environmental disasters. Therefore, efforts from major powers are required, not only on the diplomatic front through issuing UN resolutions but also in applying pressure on all parties to prevent escalation. Despite the timing being challenging due to the U.S. elections, regardless of who occupies the White House, it is not in the strategic interest of the United States to see further deterioration of security in the region for three reasons. First, regardless of the orientations of each new U.S. administration, the region will continue to hold immense importance—not necessarily due to oil or strategic waterways, but because it has become a security prelude, not just a crossroads. This has been confirmed by many crises where the U.S. needed regional partners. Second, the intensifying international competition over the region, especially with the ongoing war in Ukraine, places the Middle East within the bargaining strategies of major powers, which have integrated it into their strong security frameworks. Third, history shows that achieving regional security has relied on a balance of power, which was not achieved organically but through Western policies. This concept was destroyed with the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, resulting in the emergence of non-state groups that do not recognize the concept of a unified nation-state, each with its own separate agenda.

Despite the significance of all that has been said, there is a heavy responsibility on the United Nations beyond its humanitarian duties and the issuing of resolutions.

Note: This article has been automatically translated.

Source: Akhbar Al Khaleej