Do US-Iranian Understandings Pave the Way for Ending the War on Gaza?

As Washington and Tehran reach understandings to end the war, which may redraw the region's priorities, a fundamental question arises: Will ending the war on Gaza become part of the new stability arrangements, or will the Palestinian issue remain outside the equations of settlement despite its escalating presence in global consciousness?

Indicators are increasing that the US-Iranian understandings extend beyond the nuclear file to broader security and political arrangements related to the future and stability of the region. Although the details of these understandings have not yet fully crystallized, they raise a crucial question for Palestinians: Can they open the way for ending the war on Gaza, or will they lead to a rearrangement of the region's priorities without addressing the core of the Palestinian tragedy?

Over the past months, it seemed that various parties were betting on achieving additional gains before moving to the settlement phase. However, the continuation of the war, the expanding humanitarian cost, and the increasing political and diplomatic pressures on Israel are all factors that have pushed towards finding a way out that stops the fighting without any party appearing completely defeated.

In this context, the US-Iranian understandings may acquire special importance. Washington, which seeks to establish regional stability that allows it to focus on other international priorities, does not seem interested in keeping the region hostage to an open war that could erupt at any moment. Iran, if it succeeds in extracting understandings related to sanctions or its regional status, may also find an interest in stabilizing de-escalation on its various fronts.

Hence, the possibility arises that Gaza could transform from a stalled issue outside the understandings to one of their indirect beneficiaries, not because the concerned parties have found a solution to the Palestinian issue, but because ending the war may become a necessity to serve broader regional arrangements.

However, this possibility does not mean that Israel has abandoned its goals or changed its vision for the war. The Tel Aviv government still seeks to translate what it considers military achievements into long-term political and security realities, ensuring it the greatest possible control over the future of the Strip.

But the extended experience since the beginning of the war has also shown the limits of military power. Despite the enormous destruction and unprecedented human losses, Israel has not been able to impose a stable political vision for the day after.

Therefore, any ceasefire, whether it comes as a result of regional understandings, international pressure, or mutual attrition, will not resolve the fundamental questions related to the future of Gaza and its political and administrative identity.

Stopping the fighting may be closer than it was in previous months, but ending the war does not necessarily mean ending the crisis. The real dilemma begins with the day after.

Who will govern the Strip? What is the nature of the security arrangements? Which Palestinian entity will represent Gaza to the world and to donors? And how can a return to a new cycle of destruction and conflict be prevented?

These questions cannot be answered by the US-Iranian understandings, because they relate, first and foremost, to the internal Palestinian situation and the nature of the Palestinian political system and the future of its national representation.

This dilemma takes on double importance when discussing reconstruction. The extent of the destruction in Gaza far exceeds what was witnessed in previous wars, meaning that the reconstruction process will require enormous financial resources and a long-term Arab and international commitment.

However, Arab countries and donor agencies do not seem prepared to finance a new cycle of reconstruction in the absence of a clear political vision or a unified Palestinian authority capable of managing the process efficiently and transparently.

Therefore, the question is no longer just about the amount of money required, but about the existence of a stable political environment that ensures that reconstruction becomes a project for life and stability, not a temporary stop before a new round of destruction.

At a time when the Palestinian issue is witnessing an unprecedented expansion of global sympathy and support, Palestinians face one of their deepest internal crises. The ongoing division, the multiplicity of decision-making centers, and the erosion of the legitimacy of national institutions are all factors that limit the ability to capitalize on the ongoing transformations in the international arena.

Here, a special responsibility falls on both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. The Authority is required to renew its legitimacy and rebuild its institutions on the basis of partnership and representation, away from domination and exclusion, while Hamas is required to undertake deep political reviews that open the door to a genuine national partnership that transcends the logic of exclusivity. Without restoring national unity, Palestinians will remain the weakest link in any future regional arrangements, no matter how much international sympathy their cause receives.

Even if the US-Iranian understandings succeed in lowering the level of regional tension and ending the war on Gaza, this will not change a fundamental truth: the roots of the conflict still exist.

The Palestinian issue is not just a humanitarian crisis, nor merely a manageable security file, but the cause of a people striving for freedom, self-determination, and an end to occupation. Past decades have proven that bypassing this truth or postponing it does not lead to the disappearance of the problem, but to its return in more complex and costly forms.

Therefore, any regional stability resulting from the new understandings will remain fragile unless it is accompanied by a serious political path that addresses Palestinian national rights and puts an end to the continued occupation, settlement, and policies of imposing facts on the ground.

However, the decisive factor in the future of the next phase will not only be what is agreed upon between Washington and Tehran, nor the limits of Israeli power or international pressure, but the ability of the Palestinians themselves to regain the initiative.

The real breakthrough begins with rebuilding the Palestinian political system on the foundations of partnership, democracy, and representation, and agreeing on a comprehensive program that balances national constants with the requirements of the phase, and makes the protection of Palestinian existence and steadfastness a central priority.

In this context, especially in light of the external and internal challenges facing the National Committee for the Administration of the Strip, there is an urgent need to form a non-factional national consensus government that enjoys a political mandate from all Palestinians, enabling it to act as a transitional authority to oversee the administration of the Strip's affairs, relief and reconstruction efforts, and to create the conditions for addressing the internal Palestinian impasse. Its primary mission should be to reunify Palestinian institutions and pave the way for general elections, presidential and legislative, as the main entry point for renewing the political system, restoring the unity of Palestinian representation and decision-making, and preventing Tel Aviv from tearing apart the national entity.

The US-Iranian understandings may contribute to opening a window towards ending the war, and may help prevent the region from sliding into a wider confrontation, but they alone will not be able to shape the future of Gaza or resolve the Palestinian issue. That will remain linked, above all else, to the ability of Palestinians to transform the steadfastness and sacrifices accumulated by their people, and the growing moral and political presence their cause has achieved in the world, into a unified national project capable of asserting itself as a partner in shaping the future, not merely a subject of others' decisions.

If regional understandings may open the door to ending the war, what will determine the shape of the next phase is whether Palestinians are able to cross this door united, or whether they will enter it still prisoners of the same division and crisis that has accompanied them throughout the past years, and hindered their ability to transform their people's sacrifices into sustainable political and national achievements.