The Aggressive Hegemonic War on the Region... and Palestine in the Eye of the Storm

The question is no longer whether Washington's aggressive war for Tel Aviv's hegemony over the region will happen, but rather to what extent it is containable, or what the probability of controlling its outcomes is. According to the declarations of both Trump and Netanyahu, it aims to overthrow the Iranian regime. It seems that the sticking point was not Iran's readiness to reach a less-than-fair deal; this was confirmed by the Omani mediator, Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi, before the war began in the American media, where he revealed what had been achieved in negotiations with Iran, stating, "If the ultimate goal of the negotiations is to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons forever, then the negotiations have achieved an unprecedented breakthrough, as Iran has agreed not to manufacture any materials that could be used to produce a nuclear bomb, which was not present in the 2015 agreement, and that Iran's nuclear stockpile will be disposed of." However, according to media sources, the decision for war had been made three weeks prior, unrelated to the outcome of the Geneva negotiations. This aligns with Trump and Netanyahu's theory of imposing what they call peace and stability by force. Therefore, this war is aggressive and aims to enable Tel Aviv's comprehensive hegemony over the region, not just to change the Tehran regime. This war, whatever its parties' justifications, is neither a moral destiny nor a path to sustainable stability. It is an expression of policy failure and the triumph of the arrogance of hegemonic calculations by force over the logic of justice. From this position, rejecting it becomes a principled stance, not an alignment with an axis. It is a war that comes in multi-dimensional Israeli contexts, and certainly includes seizing the golden Trumpian opportunity to advance its plans against the Palestinian people, which, according to ongoing shifts in public opinion in the United States that are unfavorable to Israel, may not be repeated with future administrations. But the Palestinian question remains the most pressing: What happens to Palestine, which is in the eye of the storm for Tel Aviv? From Deterrence Attempts to All-Out Aggression In recent years, the region has been governed by the equation of "controlled escalation": limited strikes, deterrence messages, and attempts to avoid all-out war. Today, one of the dividing lines has been broken. When the confrontation moves into the open, calculations change and extend to multiple arenas across the entire region, and perhaps beyond. In such a context, the political role diminishes, and diplomacy becomes a tool subservient to managing the fire, not an alternative to it. The longer the war lasts, the greater the risk of it turning into a permanent reality that reshapes the region by brute force. Israel and Expanding the Margin of Maneuver In the climate of war, the Tel Aviv government finds an opportunity to expand its plans under the title of "the Iranian threat," not necessarily through an all-out war on the Palestinian arena, although that is not ruled out. It is certain that Tel Aviv, by exploiting the exceptional Trumpian opportunity for decisive action and liquidating the Palestinian issue, will expand the scope of implementing its plans, by accelerating the pace of settlement, consolidating creeping annexation, tightening security control in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and perhaps re-shaping the scene in Gaza within a harsher equation. Major wars do not freeze expansionist projects; rather, they often provide cover for them. In times of emergency, accountability for the occupation recedes, and international discussion shifts from ending injustice to preventing regional explosion. Here lies the moral dimension of this war: that the occupation transforms from a political crime that must be ended into a marginal detail within a larger war. The American Administration: A Tool for Israeli Hegemony Under Donald Trump's administration, the priority seems to be to establish a new balance of deterrence through direct brute force, with unlimited support for Israel and maximum pressure on Iran. Stability is redefined as the product of military superiority, not the fruit of a just settlement. However, the logic of deterrence by force, however decisive it may seem, does not produce sustainable peace, but rather establishes cycles of postponed violence. In this context, the Palestinian issue recedes to a secondary position within a broader conflict equation. The danger here is not only marginalization, but also redefining Palestine as a security file within a regional war, not a national liberation issue for a people under occupation. The Danger of Chaos: When the System Disintegrates Wars not only redraw the balance of power but can also dismantle the structures upon which the entire region is built. The question that arises today is not only who will win the deterrence round, but whether this war is pushing towards weakening states and unleashing long-term dynamics of chaos. There is a difference between a war aimed at modifying an adversary's behavior and a war used to re-engineer the entire political environment in the region. If the goal shifts from "deterrence" to comprehensive exhaustion or internal destabilization, then the region enters a dangerous phase of chaos, exceeding the limits of direct military confrontation, and perhaps leading to the collapse of regional security. The disintegration of any central state in the region does not remain an internal matter. It opens power vacuums, produces a multiplicity of weapon centers, encourages intertwined interventions, and re-ignites latent conflicts. Then the war is no longer a confrontation between specific parties, but turns into an extended state of instability. Here lies the deeper danger for Palestine. In a disintegrated regional environment, national issues recede before the logic of chaos. The slogan "security first" becomes a permanent justification for suspending any talk of justice. The occupation benefits from the collapse of the region, not from its stability. And chaos does not produce liberation, but creates a reality in which brute force is the only language. The most dangerous outcome of this war is not the victory of one party over another, but the disintegration of the regional system itself. And then Palestine becomes surrounded by a region preoccupied with its internal conflicts, not with its liberation issue. Marginalization and Exploitation Together In times of war, Palestine faces two intertwined dangers: First: marginalization, when international attention shifts to managing the major confrontation. Second: exploitation, when the Palestinian arena is used as a mutual bargaining chip: Israel to reinforce its security narrative, and Iran to prove its ability to influence deep within Israel. In both cases, the Palestinian situation fragments even further than it already is, and the issue is reduced to a function within a conflict it does not control or influence. What is required of Palestinians? To fortify the national decision from being drawn into the logic of axes, and this does not contradict the principled stance against aggressive war. It also immediately requires restoring the unity of the political framework on the basis of national consensus and genuine partnership that ends internal fragmentation. To re-establish the definition of the issue as a national liberation issue for a people under occupation, not a security file in a regional war. To develop a rational discourse based on international law and legitimate rights, and to preserve the independence of the Palestinian will. And to be wary of the illusion of relying on the clashes of others to achieve self-gain. For in times of war, the gamble is not on the outcomes of confrontations, but on protecting the issue from marginalization and exploitation, and restoring politics as a tool of independent national action.