Pax Israelia or bellum aeternum?

Today, Israel seems to be realising the old mantra of the American neoconservatives under George W. Bush from 2003: the creation of a "New Middle East", including regime change. Then, the United States failed disastrously with its invasion of Iraq, which violated international law. Iraq descended into a bloody civil war that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives. 

Jihadist movements proliferated as a result, with the Islamic State (IS) and its pseudo-caliphate marking the height of terrorist activity in Iraq and Syria. In 2014, IS fighters committed genocide against the Yazidis in Iraq. IS also exported terror to Europe with large-scale attacks in Paris, Brussels and Berlin.

A campaign led by an international coalition led to the military defeat of IS with the fall of Mosul. Iraq is still in the process of becoming stable again. Only recently has it achieved a reasonably representative government.

Israel has achieved many of its goals

With his military success against Hezbollah, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has, in a way, contributed to regime change in Lebanon. The "Party of God" can no longer dominate the work of the government or effectively control the south of the country.

A pragmatic transitional government led by General Joseph Aoun—widely respected by the population—and Prime Minister Najib Mikati—seen as effective, especially in the West—could restore control over all Lebanese territory, including Hezbollah's former strongholds, and guide the country out of its deep economic crisis.

The regime change in Syria in December 2024 was also only possible because Hezbollah and Iran, the main backers of the Assad dictatorship alongside Russia, had been weakened by Israel. Russia itself had run out of resources due to its invasion of Ukraine.

However, a Pax Israelia—to borrow the expression of Lebanese political scientist, diplomat and minister Ghassan Salamé—in which Israel, backed by the United States, brings stability to the region, still seems a distant prospect.

Israel remains the undisputed hegemonic power in the region, except perhaps in Syria, where Turkey continues to act as a counterweight. Saudi Arabia and Egypt, once regional heavyweights, have lost much of their influence, paralysed by fear of Israel's military might and the unpredictability of Donald Trump.

But we are a long way from a climate conducive to conflict resolution. On the contrary, the risk of a Bellum Aeternum—an eternal war—is growing.

Even if the ceasefire with Iran holds, the centres of conflict will not have been extinguished, and the danger of war will persist. And if Netanyahu were to succeed in toppling the Islamic regime in Tehran—which is his declared goal—it would likely destabilise the region even further.

Militias threaten stability

The collapse of the Iranian regime could unleash powerful centrifugal forces. It is often forgotten that only 60 percent of Iran's population is Persian. There are numerous ethnic minorities, including Kurds, Baloch, Arabs and Azerbaijanis. Some of them—especially Kurdish and Baloch groups—are already in open conflict with Tehran.

The risk of a domestic uprising also looms, one that would likely be brutally suppressed by the Revolutionary Guards and could plunge the country into chaos. In such a scenario, the ultra-conservative leadership might attempt to destabilise Iraq, where they still command loyal militias. The leadership would also have little interest in a stable Syria.

Iran could even actively support opponents of Ahmed al-Sharaa's fragile Syrian government, which is already struggling to maintain control over the country and its diverse ethnic and religious makeup. 

Tensions remain high: last Sunday, Syria was shaken by its first major suicide bombing since the fall of the Assad regime. The little-known jihadist group Saraya Ansar al-Sunna, believed to have ties to IS, killed 25 people in a church in Damascus. Other threats in Syria include radicalised sections of the Shiite minority and the Fulul—loyalists of the old regime.

Israel, for its part, is contributing to instability in Syria through attacks on military targets, its occupation in the south of the country and incursions into the Golan Heights. A renewed descent into chaos would have grave consequences for the entire region, especially for neighbouring Lebanon, whose stability remains extremely fragile.

But it is not only weak states that are under threat. A closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which the Iranian parliament has threatened, could cause significant problems for the United Arab Emirates.

Despite its vast financial reserves, a prolonged conflict that disrupts oil and gas exports would place the Emirates under immense pressure, especially given its rapidly growing population. And who would continue to invest in the Emirates as an economic and technological hub with a war raging right on its doorstep?

Netanyahu's government needs war

"Netanyahu is an excellent tactician, but not a strategist—he's incapable of thinking beyond his own political survival," says one senior European diplomat and Middle East expert. And that is precisely the core issue: what comes after the tactical victories?

The Middle East is being reshaped by Israel, but a lasting peace—a true Pax Israelia—remains out of reach. On the contrary, there is now a growing consensus not only among international experts but also among senior German and EU diplomats that Netanyahu has a personal interest in prolonging conflict in the region—a Bellum Netanyahu.

Conflict is the only way he can keep his far-right coalition together, extend his time in office and prevent his political and financial crimes, including alleged war crimes, from being investigated and sanctioned by Israeli and international courts.

There are over 56,000 dead in Gaza. The devastation is total. And there is still no reconstruction plan other than the forced displacement proposed by far-right ministers. In the face of such trauma, how can one even begin to imagine an Israeli-Palestinian peace? And if that peace already seems illusory, what does it mean for the region as a whole?

The Abraham Accords, once hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, now feel like relics of a bygone era. Who, at this point, could realistically lead a peaceful reshaping of the Middle East? Certainly not the current far-right-dominated Israeli government.

Europe must apply pressure

The EU and the United Kingdom, whose own diplomatic efforts have been undermined by Israeli-American military actions, must urgently put forward a comprehensive peace plan.

The Arab League has already made substantial proposals on the Israeli-Palestinian question. A joint position by the EU, the Arab League and Turkey, a NATO member, could at the very least increase pressure on the United States.

France and the United Kingdom, both permanent members of the UN Security Council, must use their full weight—even in the face of a likely American veto—to push for bold resolutions aimed at de-escalation.

Even though such a veto is probable, Trump may still respond to economic arguments. He has close ties to the Saudi leadership and could be persuaded to pressure Israel, particularly if he feels that the nuclear threat from Iran has been neutralised.

At present, only the United States has the leverage to restrain Israel from further unilateral military action, before a Bellum Aeternum, an endless war, takes hold.

This is an edited translation of the German original.