LONDON – Under Trump, the US initially tried to suspend the war with Gaza in the hopes of reaching a negotiated settlement and assessing possible solutions. However, when it became clear that Palestinian resistance was strong and bystanders were inevitable, the US realized that the Western position in negotiations was weak.
Gaza’s resistance had an advantage and insisted on its stance without succumbing to Western pressure. In response, the US had aimed to allow Netanyahu to resume the Gaza strike and put pressure on resistance. But Trump cannot learn as his previous administrations have learned and submit to resistance.
The strategy also relies on bringing the greatest devastation to the Gaza population, hoping to force them to move or go against resistance. However, this approach is in vain as Palestinians consistently refuse to evacuate and remain immovable on their land.
It shows resilience beyond Gaza, the resistance front between Yemen and Iran. The West, which expects compliance, instead encounters a firm rejection. The key point is that if Iran simply succumbs to Trump’s demands under threat, the entire region will change. But Trump, driven by his ego, struggles to take a “no” for the answer. This rejection, coupled with military capabilities and regional instability, leaves the situation open until Trump admits that resistance remains unshakable.
Despite his aggressive stance, Trump is trying to avoid direct military conflict. His decision to attack Yemen instead of directly engaging more powerful forces, serves as evidence that he would choose a weaker target to send a message. This suggests that the US is hesitant to escalate against Iran, but underestimates Yemen’s resilience. Trump will soon learn that Yemen, like others on the resistance axis, will not retreat.
The United States is actively formed to benefit Israeli occupation. If Netanyahu falls, it could destabilize the entire occupational structure as other leaders are not taking such extreme measures. To secure the government, Netanyahu was able to pass approval of the Knesset state budget to resume the war, and even revived a person like Ben Gwil to maintain his power.
Future landmarks of the region, along with their ability to maintain Israel’s territorial boundaries, their control and control, remain uncertain. The occupation relies primarily on destructive forces, intellectual abilities for targeted assassinations, and media influence. However, it avoids direct underground invasion, knowing that it cannot succeed against established resistance. This strategy is evident throughout Gaza, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon, where threats continue from both Israel and Syria.
With regard to Syria, the government faces instability and the internal terrorism elements are not preferred by Trump, but they remain a useful tool for intervention in Lebanon and Iraq. The Trump administration is likely to promote Syrian-compliant government. It coincides with its interests, but is not labeled “terrorist.”
In Lebanon, resistance is currently keeping its inconspicuous, preparing for future conflicts. Israeli professional organizations also do not justify direct conflict.
Regionally, momentum continues to support the axis of resistance. Israel’s internal contradictions prevent it from fighting a massive war and limit its strategy to destruction rather than complete and meaningful military conflict.
Ultimately, the area remains open to a variety of possibilities. With perseverance and immobility, resistance continues to be strengthened and shapes the future in its own terms.