Between Obama and Trump, a different Middle East

Although both Iran on one side, and the US and Israel on the other, may claim victory, the truth is the age of militias is drawing to a close

Between Obama and Trump, a different Middle East

In the region's political memory, the nuclear agreement struck under President Barack Obama in 2015 still looms large, as does the old lesson: once bitten, twice shy.

Today, all indications suggest that a new agreement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran is close at hand. Yet 2026 is not 2015, and Donald Trump is not Barack Obama.

These negotiations come after a succession of wars that began on October 7, 2023, conflicts that have cost Iran dearly. Unlike the 2015 accord, forged after years of secret talks in Oman, today’s discussions are unfolding in full public view, with cameras tracking every delegation arriving in Islamabad.

The Middle East that emerged after October 7 bears little resemblance to the one that preceded it. Bashar al-Assad has fallen. Hezbollah, having been worn down by repeated confrontations with Israel, is no longer the force it once was. Israel is no longer prepared to tolerate hostile militias dug in along its borders.

At the same time, Arab states, particularly those in the Gulf, have broadened their network of international partnerships. Washington is no longer their sole anchor. China and Russia have stepped into the regional landscape with weight and confidence, and ties with both have deepened across multiple sectors since 2015.

The agreement now expected may focus narrowly on Iran’s nuclear programme and the lifting of sanctions. Yet the region that would receive this deal is no longer the region that received Obama’s accord.

The Middle East that emerged after October 7 bears little resemblance to the one that preceded it.

Endless crises

In Lebanon, crises continue to accumulate, some fuelled by Hezbollah and others triggered by Israel's war with the group. Lebanon, both officially and socially, can no longer live with a weapon that has brought it nothing but ruin for more than a quarter of a century. Israel, in turn, is no longer willing to accept the fiction that this arsenal will be used solely within Lebanon or Syria.

In Syria, Assad's fall has left Syrians absorbed in the task of rebuilding a state, one not built on conflict, nor used as a corridor for militia weapons. His loss dealt the harshest blow to Iran's regional project, severing the geographic artery that linked Tehran to Beirut for decades.

Iraq, too, is in a different moment. Iran's man, Nouri al-Maliki, attempted a return to power, yet Washington's veto of his return outweighed Tehran's support. Even the militias aligned with Iran are now being pressed to hand their weapons to the state.

Lebanon's battle is more complex, though far from impossible. Before the American, Israeli, and Arab veto against Hezbollah's arsenal, there is the veto of a Lebanese majority, reinforced by the government's own commitments to place all weapons under state authority.

Hezbollah is attempting to turn back the clock, yet failure shadows its every move. It can no longer replay the events of 7 May, 2008, when it seized control of several Sunni-majority areas in West Beirut in response to a government decision to disarm its telecommunications network, nor can it impose governments shaped to its liking as it once did through intimidation tactics.

After October 7, Israel is no longer prepared to tolerate hostile militias dug in along its borders.

A much-changed Iran

Iran itself has changed. Its Supreme Leader has been killed, as has Qasem Soleimani, one of the principal architects of its expansionist strategy. Meanwhile, Iranians seize every opportunity to voice their anger at what their country has become. Sanctions have left deep and unmistakable marks.

Tehran tried to pressure the world by wielding the Strait of Hormuz as leverage, expecting all sides to rush to reopen it at any cost. No one did.

As I have said before, this war came late, yet it had to come. Some forms of peace are born only out of war. All sides may claim victory, but the truth is clearer than ever: the age of militias is drawing to a close, and Barack Obama's project has lost its wager.

The states and peoples of this region are no longer consolation prizes to be handed to the Supreme Leader in deference to an elitist, Orientalist vision. This is a region that has paid dearly to move from the shadow of militias into the shelter of the state.

font change