With regional confrontations escalating in an unprecedented manner, and opportunities for political solutions diminishing, the region is heading towards greater complexity, as developments on the ground dominate the scene at the expense of diplomacy. In the midst of conflicting international and regional interests, the war appears to be subject to multiple scenarios, with the absence of any real signs of calm or the start of clear negotiations.
Writer and political analyst Tawfiq Shoman, in an interview with , saw that “diplomatic and negotiating windows appear to be completely closed at the current stage, making space and land governed by the language of missiles and cannons, in light of a continuing escalation in which the United States, Iran, and Israel participate.”
He pointed out that “the continued absence of political paths means that the pace of escalation is likely to increase from various parties, especially the American, Iranian and Israeli.”
Shoman explained that “the American bets that preceded the war on Iran were not fulfilled after the aggression, foremost of which is toppling the regime or mobilizing the internal street, through an equation based on external bombing in parallel with internal protest,” considering that “these bets show their emptiness and unreality.”
He added: “If the war stops now without achieving these goals, Donald Trump will be seriously questioned about the feasibility of this war and its backgrounds, and this is what has begun to appear in broad discussions at high levels, especially in some of the major and sober American media outlets.”
He continued: “Even the three conditions that were raised as a pretext for war, which are the Iranian nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and the role of Iran’s allies in the region, have not been achieved yet, which puts the American administration in front of a major dilemma, and may constitute a severe blow to Trump if the fighting stops without achieving them.”
Schuman considered that “this reality pushes the United States to continue the war, hoping to achieve any achievement, even partial, of the declared goals,” pointing out that “reliance on overthrowing the regime or mobilizing the street has practically fallen, which makes achieving an achievement in this context unlikely.”
Regarding Israel, he pointed out that “Tel Aviv is fighting this war in direct partnership with the United States, and will not miss the opportunity to exploit this military and political cover to the maximum extent, which makes it not interested in stopping operations at the present time.”
As for the Iranian side, he explained that “Tehran raises a fundamental issue related to not repeating the war in a third phase, as what happened in June 2025 and then in February, leading to the current escalation, raises serious questions about guarantees that a new round will not break out in the future.”
He added: “The Iranians are seeking to obtain international guarantees, and perhaps to form something similar to an international lobby that includes Russia and China, and perhaps the European Union, which refuses to engage in the war against Iran, but this path is still fragile and does not provide real guarantees that the war will not be renewed.”
Schuman stressed that “the absence of these guarantees makes it difficult for Iran to accept a cessation of the war, given the possibility of its recurrence at any time.”
Regarding the Lebanese front, he stressed that he is “one of those who say that there is no direct connection between the Lebanese and Iranian fronts,” considering that “a ceasefire from the Israeli side is sufficient to calm the situation in Lebanon quickly, especially if it is accompanied by clear guarantees to stop the attacks and withdraw from the occupied Lebanese territories.”
But he added, “So far, there are no indications that Israel is ready to provide such guarantees. On the contrary, it appears to be benefiting from the military partnership with the United States to continue its operations.”
Shoman stressed that “the door to negotiations is still closed at the Lebanese and Iranian levels, in the absence of any serious indications of launching a negotiating track, in exchange for a clear continuation of the course of the war, and without any indications that it will soon stop.”
He pointed to “the negative atmosphere emanating from Washington towards the Lebanese presidential initiative, which reflects a state of American and Israeli indifference towards it,” explaining that “the launch of this initiative was supposed to be preceded by clear international guarantees, especially from the American side, to prepare the necessary ground for its success, but that did not happen, which led to it being ignored and not being built upon internationally.”
