The region is now approaching what President Trump describes as the “second phase” of the Gaza agreement. And although the contours of this transition remain unclear — including the nature of the international force expected to assume responsibility for the Strip — the current vacuum offers Israel the widest space to impose its own vision on the ground, maintain its ability to carry out direct targeting of Hamas operatives, and even begin applying pressure to gradually facilitate the departure of Gaza’s residents.

 

At the same time, on the Lebanese front, Israel continues to strike Hezbollah, its infrastructure and its personnel. And as US pressure on the Lebanese state persists, that pressure has begun to yield results in the form of a push toward direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel — a shift that would move the situation from a military framework to a political one.

 

This may be seen as breaking one of Lebanon’s largest taboos, but it also represents a transfer of the crisis inward. The Lebanese Army, which has taken no step that satisfies Washington regarding Hezbollah’s weapons, now finds itself compelled to open direct political channels — something that will translate into increased internal pressure from Hezbollah in the form of rejection and protest. Yet even this political track will not deter Israel from continuing its targeting of the group’s infrastructure and military capabilities.

 

Meanwhile, the Syrian authorities announced the seizure of a weapons shipment bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon — a move promoted as a “major achievement,” and one that even drew congratulations from CENTCOM’s commander to the Syrian government. This clearly reflects a U.S. expectation that Damascus will play a dual role: First, preventing weapons flows to Lebanon by confronting Iran’s proxies on Syrian soil. Second, combating terrorist organizations such as Daesh, Al-Qaeda and their splinter factions, groups that have increasingly sought to assert themselves as key actors challenging the Syrian state itself.

 

The Syrian government’s limited ability to demonstrate real effectiveness in confronting these groups may push it to prioritize interrupting weapons flows to Lebanon and therefore to Hezbollah, as a way to maintain U.S. attention and support, and preserve the image of a relevant player — at least temporarily — especially amid rising doubts over its capacity to defeat extremist organizations or dismantle their networks.

 

Washington’s simultaneous push on both tracks — confronting Iran’s proxies and promoting political normalization with Israel — underscores a clear synchronization between military operations on the ground and the political architecture the administration seeks to impose as a framework for a regional peace vision favored by President Trump.

 

This approach is unlikely to remain confined to Lebanon; it is rapidly extending to Iraq, which now finds itself facing the same emerging reality Washington is working to enforce. The question of militias that Washington views as a threat, or as operational extensions of Iran, may soon develop into a confrontation mirroring those unfolding on other fronts.

 

Beyond active conflict zones, it is increasingly evident that the broader American strategy for reshaping the region and imposing new settlements does not stop at disarming militias or armed factions. It also aims to enforce a culture of non-conflict. This represents an attempt to dramatically reshape the ideological and political environment that has dominated the region for decades — an effort that will not be easy, but which is becoming visible through practical steps that go far beyond merely expanding the Abraham Accords.

 

For example, the move to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization cannot be dismissed as a routine measure. Nor can Washington’s allies treat it as a technical classification akin to the designations of Daesh or al-Qaeda. The issue transcends security-based persecution of individuals, institutions, or financial networks. It reflects an American desire to confront an ideological framework that Washington now sees as a key source of the region’s perpetual instability.

 

This shift will place many states before an unprecedented and difficult reality — one that requires significant political skill and boldaness to manage the profound repercussions expected from this new direction in US policy.