The Aggressive Hegemony War on the Region.. and Palestine at the Eye of the Storm

The question is no longer whether Washington's aggressive war to impose Tel Aviv's hegemony on the region will take place, but rather to what extent it can be contained, or what the likelihood is of controlling its outcomes. According to the declarations of both Trump and Netanyahu, it aims to topple the Iranian regime. It appears that the knot was not in Iran's readiness to reach a deal that is less than fair; this was confirmed by the Omani mediator, Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi, just before the war started in American media, where he revealed what had been agreed upon in the negotiations with Iran. He stated, “If the ultimate goal of the negotiations is to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons forever, then the negotiations achieved an unprecedented breakthrough, as Iran agreed not to manufacture any materials that could be used to produce a nuclear bomb, which was not included in the 2015 agreement, and that Iran's nuclear stockpile would be eliminated.”

However, according to media sources, the decision for war had been made three weeks prior, unrelated to the results of the Geneva negotiations. This aligns with Trump and Netanyahu's theory of what they call imposing peace and stability by force. Thus, this war is aggressive and aims to enable Tel Aviv to achieve comprehensive hegemony over the region, not just to change the regime in Tehran. This war, regardless of the justifications of its parties, is not an ethical fate, nor a path to sustainable stability. It expresses a failure of politics and the triumph of arrogance in hegemonic calculations by force over the logic of justice. From this perspective, rejecting it becomes a principled stance, not merely an alignment within a bloc. It is a war that comes in multifaceted Israeli contexts, definitely including the golden Trump opportunity to advance its plans against the Palestinian people, which, according to the ongoing shifts in public opinion in the United States, are unfavorable to Israel and may not recur with future administrations.

But the Palestinian question remains the most urgent: What happens to Palestine as it is at the heart of the storm for Tel Aviv?

From Deterrence Attempts to Full-Scale Aggression

Over the past years, the region has been governed by the equation of "controlled escalation": limited strikes, deterrent messages, and attempts to avoid full-scale war. However, today, one of the dividing lines has been breached. When confrontation moves into the open, calculations change, extending to multiple arenas across the region and perhaps beyond.

In such a context, the political role recedes, and diplomacy becomes a subordinate tool for managing fire with no alternative. The longer the war lasts, the greater the risk it transforms into a permanent reality that reshapes the region by brute force.

Israel and the Expansion of Maneuvering Margin

In a war climate, the Tel Aviv government finds an opportunity to expand its plans under the banner of "the Iranian threat," not necessarily through a comprehensive war on the Palestinian front, though that cannot be excluded. It is certain that Tel Aviv, by capitalizing on the exceptional Trump opportunity for resolution and the liquidation of the Palestinian issue, will broaden the scope of implementing its plans by accelerating settlement activities, entrenching creeping annexation, and tightening security grip in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and perhaps reconfiguring 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, the scrutiny of occupation declines, and international discussions shift from ending oppression to preventing regional explosions.

Here lies the ethical dimension regarding this war: the occupation transforms from a political crime that must be ended into a peripheral detail within a larger war.

The American Administration: A Tool for Israeli Hegemony

Under Donald Trump’s administration, the priority seems to be establishing 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, no matter how decisive it seems, does not produce lasting peace but establishes cycles of deferred violence. In this framework, the Palestinian cause recedes to a secondary status within a broader conflict equation. The danger here lies not only in marginalization but in redefining Palestine as a security issue within a regional war, not a national liberation cause for a people under occupation.

The Danger of Chaos: When the System Disintegrates

Wars do not merely redraw the balance of power; they can also dismantle the structures upon which the entire region is based. The question that arises today is not just who will win the round of deterrence, but whether this war pushes towards weakening states and unleashing long-term chaos dynamics.

There is a difference between a war aimed at altering 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 chaos phase, exceeding the limits of direct military confrontation and possibly leading to a collapse of regional security.

The disintegration of any central state in the region is no longer just an internal matter. It opens power vacuums, produces multiple arms centers, tempts intertwining interventions, and reignites latent conflicts. At that point, war ceases to be a confrontation between specific parties, evolving into an extended state of instability.

Here lies the deepest danger for Palestine. In a disintegrated regional environment, national issues recede before the logic of chaos. The slogan "security first" becomes a perpetual justification for suspending any discussion of justice. The occupation benefits from the collapse of the region, not its stability. Chaos does not produce liberation, but creates a reality where brute force is the only language.

The most dangerous outcome of this war may not be the victory of one party over another, but the disintegration of the regional system itself. At that point, Palestine becomes surrounded by a region preoccupied with its internal conflicts, not with its liberation cause.

Marginalization and Utilization Together

During wartime, Palestine faces two intertwined dangers: the first is marginalization, when international interest shifts towards managing the major confrontation. The second is utilization, when the Palestinian arena is used as a bargaining chip: Israel to enhance its security narrative, and Iran to demonstrate its ability to influence deep inside Israel. In both cases, the Palestinian situation deteriorates further, and the cause is reduced to a function within a conflict that it does not control or influence.

What is Required from Palestine?

To fortify the national decision from being drawn into the logic of axes, which does not contradict the principled stance against the aggressive war, and to immediately restore the unity of the political framework based on national reconciliation and a genuine partnership that ends internal fragmentation. To re-establish the definition of the cause 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, preserving Palestinian will. And to be cautious against the illusion of relying on the clashes of others to achieve self-gains. In wartime, the bet is not on the results of confrontations, but on protecting the cause from marginalization and utilization and restoring politics as a tool of independent national action.