A week ago, when I submitted this article, the cycle of war and peace surrounding the Iranian conflict had swung towards ruling out an imminent US attack on Iran. US officials later revealed that an offensive had actually been scheduled to take place at dawn the following day. Whether or not this was true is no longer relevant given how often the pattern has repeated itself: looming war followed by a prospect of peace.
President Donald Trump has turned his shifts between bellicose rhetoric and backing down into a kind of art form. His threats make Iranian hardliners’ blood boil, almost ensuring that any proposals Washington presents will be rejected. Then Trump makes offers he knows perfectly well the Iranians will reject. This type of dance is sufficient to make oil prices soar and plummet and send currency markets into a frenzy. The prices of hundreds of oil-related commodities, from helium to sulphur, have gone up and down but the net outcome has been record losses. The resulting international economic and geostrategic crisis is generating enough upheaval in the global political arena, broadening the war that the US and Israel launched against Iran.
In the natural course of events, peace is snatched from the jaws of war. Even the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was intended to end hostilities, after which US-Japanese friendship emerged.
The Second Gulf War, triggered by Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait, opened people’s eyes to the fact that every war in the Middle East is a dimension of the Arab-Israeli conflict, even when one Arab state invades another Arab state. Therefore, when that Gulf war ended, it did not lead to a grand regional conference to settle outstanding issues between the belligerents, but rather to the Madrid Conference to resolve the bitter conflict between Arabs and Israelis.
All the world’s major powers attended, as did all Arab states. Successive rounds of bilateral and multilateral negotiations were held. The diplomatic activity was intense, yet Israeli settlement expansion never paused for a second, and the efforts to sabotage peace intensified in tandem with the growing space for peace through the Israeli-Jordanian treaty and the Oslo Accords, which established the first-ever Palestinian National Authority on Palestinian land. However, these developments did not prevent the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by Zionist extremists or Hamas’ suicide operations after the Palestinian Authority assumed its responsibilities.
The foregoing presents quite a pessimistic view of the future. The Israeli writer Gershon Baskin offers a more optimistic perspective on his website: “For the first time in many years, I believe peace between Israelis and Palestinians may be closer than most people imagine. Not because Hamas changed. Not because the occupation disappeared. But because the strategic landscape of the Middle East has fundamentally changed.
“After October 7, the hostages, the war in Gaza, and the massive settlement building and ethnic cleansing taking place in the West Bank, this sounds absurd to many Israelis and Palestinians. Most Israelis no longer believe Palestinians are true partners for peace. Most Palestinians no longer believe Israel intends to end the occupation or permit genuine Palestinian independence. Yet, beneath the trauma and despair, the foundations of a regional political settlement are more developed today than at any time since the Oslo years.
“The outlines of peace have long been known: two states based on the 1967 lines with agreed land swaps; security arrangements guaranteeing Israeli security and Palestinian sovereignty; Jerusalem as the capital of both states; and regional guarantees. We do not suffer from a lack of diplomatic knowledge. We suffer from a lack of political courage.”
Baskin believes that the source of political courage is to be found in the fact that the Middle East of 2026 is not the same as it was in the past. “Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Morocco all have strategic interests in regional integration, economic development, and security cooperation. There is growing recognition that rebuilding Gaza and stabilizing the region cannot happen without a political horizon for Palestinians.”
The key to achieving this, he argues, lies in the next Israeli elections, which he presents as offering a solution not just for the Arabs but also for the Israelis. The latter will have to choose between an ongoing war under Benjamin Netanyahu and the prospect of peace in a region desperate for opportunities for reconstruction, development, and progress.
These ideas offer much food for reflection, especially regarding how to translate them into practical ways forward, not only towards Palestinian self-determination but also regional stability and security, shared development, and a brighter future for a part of the world that has suffered immensely.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 28 May, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: