|
|
|
| Will Washington dare to deter Israel if it rejects peace? |
|
Will Washington dare to deter Israel if it rejects peace?
Analytical Article
13/06/2026
(See translation in Arabic section)
Sydney-Middle East Times Int'l: When the world unites on a ceasefire, and Israel remains alone outside the logic of de-escalation, the real question becomes: Has Washington truly changed, or will old calculations prevail once again?”
At a highly sensitive regional moment, the entire region appears to be facing a historic test no less dangerous than the war itself. Most Arab states, along with the United States, Iran, Turkey, and numerous international and regional powers, are now speaking the language of a ceasefire, de-escalation, and opening the door to a political settlement that would prevent a wider explosion that could leave nothing standing. However, Israeli intransigence stands out as a major obstacle to any serious path to peace, as if sending a clear message that there are those who do not want the war to end, nor do they want the region to catch its breath.
What is happening today cannot be viewed as a passing political dispute, but rather as a conflict between two logics: one that seeks to stop the bloodshed, save civilians, and prevent the collapse of what remains of stability; Another logic still sees fire as a means of exerting pressure, destruction as a way to impose realities, and the continuation of wars as a guarantee of maintaining military and political superiority. Hence, the question is no longer simply: Will Washington and Tehran succeed in reaching an agreement? Rather, it is: Will Israel accept this agreement if it becomes a reality? Will it allow a ceasefire to transform into genuine peace, or will it work to undermine it before it even begins?
Past experience has shown that Israel has often dealt with political initiatives according to its own calculations, not according to the will of the international community or the interests of the peoples affected by wars. Every time the world called for de-escalation, there were military operations, new conditions, or an escalation on the ground that returned matters to square one. Therefore, the apprehension today is not theoretical, but based on a long history of squandering opportunities, especially when Israel feels that any American-Iranian understanding might limit its freedom of military action or place constraints on its policies in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, and the region in general.
What is new this time, however, is that the United States appears, albeit cautiously, to be facing a different kind of test. If Washington is serious about brokering a ceasefire agreement and opening negotiations with Iran, it cannot expect Tehran, Arab capitals, and mediators to respect the agreement while turning a blind eye to any Israeli attempt to undermine it. American credibility will be on the line, not only with Iran, but also with the Arab world, Europe, and international public opinion, which is weary of the scenes of bloodshed and destruction. Here, we recall President Trump's statement: "We want peace, not war."
And here, the most important question arises: Will the American response to Israel be different this time if Tel Aviv rejects the ceasefire or works to sabotage it? In the past, Israel has been accustomed to receiving almost unconditional political and military support, even when it defied international calls for de-escalation. Today, any further American leniency will mean that Washington remains incapable of exerting pressure on its closest ally, even when its strategic interests and those of the region are at stake. A different American response does not necessarily mean military confrontation or political hostility with Israel. Rather, it means using real pressure tactics: withdrawing diplomatic cover from any escalation, linking military support to respect for the ceasefire, sending unambiguous public messages, and informing the Israeli government that the era of blank checks is over. If Washington is capable of pressuring Iran and demanding restraint from Arab states, it is equally capable of demanding that Israel respect the rules of peace.
However, if the United States refuses to play this role, the agreement—even if signed—will remain fragile and constantly threatened. Peace cannot be sustained by statements or maintained by pleasantries; it requires clear guarantees and a genuine will to prevent any party from turning the region into an open arena for repeated wars.
Israel today faces a historic choice: either to be part of a process that opens the door to a comprehensive de-escalation, or to appear to the world as the party that rejects peace when it is not tailored solely to its interests. In either case, Washington cannot evade its responsibility. If Israel chooses intransigence, does America have the political courage to tell it: Enough?
This is the real test. The United States is not required to declare a disagreement with Israel, but rather to prove that it is a superpower capable of protecting peace when it sponsors it. If the entire world is moving toward a ceasefire, then whoever rejects it must bear the cost of that rejection, regardless of their name or alliances.
The region can no longer endure more bloodshed. People no longer believe empty promises. If the American-Iranian agreement could mark the beginning of a path toward broader de-escalation, its success or failure will largely depend on one question: Will Israel choose peace, or will it choose war? And will Washington be content with merely observing, or will it this time impose the logic of state power over the logic of war? |
|
|
|
|
|
