A year of tough choices

The choice of war or the choice of peace in the region? The discourse of dialogue or the decision of political and military confrontation?

Since Hamas's attack on Israel on October 7, everyone knew that the region had entered a new and different phase. We were certain that nothing would be the same after that day. Hamas put everyone in front of difficult choices with its attack on Israel and gave Israel the justification and pretext to do whatever it wanted in terms of destruction, killing and displacement of the Palestinian people. It gave the West and Israel's allies the pretext to support Tel Aviv’s decisions under the pretext of the right to self-defense, and it gave the pretext to other countries, institutions and international organizations to remain silent on Israel's crimes out of helplessness or fear.

As for the Arabs, they were not in a better position and were not comfortable making decisions. Hamas confronted them with a situation on the ground without consulting anyone about its decision or informing anyone of its plans. The Arabs were divided, with those who supported Hamas and its decisions of war, resistance and launching the great battle "to liberate Palestine!" However, others opposed the way Hamas carried out that attack, as it led to a major catastrophe and human and material losses, and the group was not prepared or able to confront the Israeli response, considering the latter is supported financially, militarily, politically and diplomatically by the United States and the West.

Hezbollah was also faced with difficult choices: would it participate in the war that Hamas started or would it be satisfied with observing? Hezbollah quickly chose to be a party to the conflict and drag all of Lebanon into this difficult war. Today, Lebanon is paying the price for Hezbollah's decision to participate in an asymmetric war that Tehran encouraged it to engage in. Hezbollah paid the highest price for its decision, namely the assassination of its leader Hassan Nasrallah and all its senior leaders. Lebanon is still paying the price for Hezbollah's decisions, with Israel invading the south and bombing areas in Beirut and throughout Lebanon, leaving hundreds of innocent people falling victim to that decision that Hezbollah took a year ago.

The Iranian regime – the party that incites violence in the region and supports Hezbollah, the Houthis and other terrorist militias financially and militarily – found itself involved in this war, even though since the first day it has been trying to show the world that it is innocent and has nothing to do with what is happening in the region, and that it did not incite Hamas and is not pushing Hezbollah to participate. However, the world was not convinced by Iran’s dissimulation, so the regime found itself in the eye of the storm.

This time, it did not escape international criticism and blame, in addition to the blame of its own people who accused it of inaction, lack of confrontation, and reneging on its slogans and promises of a “harsh response.” Therefore, it decided to take part in the game to save face. After its attack on Israel on October 1 with more than two hundred missiles, it faced two difficult choices: either continue the confrontation and receive the Israeli response, which seems would be painful and could target its nuclear reactor, or retreat completely and sit at the negotiating table for the first time, completely change its policies, abandon support for terrorist militias, and enter into a state of peace with Israel and the countries of the region. The Iranian regime knows today that it is the weaker party in the conflict, not only against Israel but also against the West.

A year of difficult choices does not seem to be over yet, as the coming days are still full of surprises, and each party must bear its decisions and determine its options for the future.