Hamas’s positions on the demilitarization of Gaza and the United States’ declarations on Iran outline a complex geopolitical scenario between truce, negotiations and possible changes in the international structure.
A leading exponent of HamasBasem Naim, clarified in an interview with the US site Drop Site that the movement does not intend to accept impositions on disarmament formulated by one party only. His words arrive while Donald Trump And Benjamin Netanyahu they insist on the need for one Gaza free of weapons as a prerequisite for reconstruction and for the possible transition to a new phase of the truce. Naim, involved in negotiations for the cease-fireruled out that the organization could adhere to requests that it defines as extreme, reiterating that the total demilitarization of the Gaza Strip it’s not on the table under current conditions. According to the manager, the dossier cannot be isolated from the broader political context. “Our line is unequivocal,” he said, explaining that before discussing the delivery or seizure of weapons, the Israeli government, with the support of mediators and the American guarantee, must fully implement the commitments made in the first phase of the agreement. In his opinion, the question is not eminently military but political, and passes – in his words – from the end of what he defines as theIsraeli occupation. The Hamas representative specified that a discussion on the fate of the arsenal could only take place within one long-lasting truce accompanied by a political path directed at the birth of one Palestinian state. In such a scenario, he argued, the “resistance” would commit to respecting the ceasefire under Palestinian, Arab and international monitoring, with weapons withdrawn from operational use and stored in depots. For Naim, it is a priority to halt Israeli military operations and ensure a multi-year pause – three, five or seven years – that proceeds in parallel with political negotiations. Without mutual guarantees, he observed, talking about disarmament would be equivalent to leaving the field open for future military actions in the Strip. He also contested the idea that the delivery of weapons should precede reconstruction or Israeli withdrawal, defining the either/or “arms or war” attributed to Western politicians as unacceptable.
Pressure on Tehran and uncertainties about Iran’s future
At the same time, on the front Iranianthe American president raised his tone, claiming that a change at the top a Tehran would represent the most desirable outcome. However, as reported by CNN citing sources involved in the planning, Washington would not yet have a defined plan for the phase following a possible fall of the current leadership.The Secretary of State Marco Rubiospeaking in Congress in recent weeks, acknowledged the uncertainty over the possible power structure in the event of the collapse of the Iranian system. Intelligence assessments, again according to the broadcaster, indicate that an alternative could prove to be even more complex: in a scenario of institutional vacuum, theIslamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – the most intransigent wing of the apparatus – could temporarily take control. Sources familiar with the confidential reports describe i Pasdaran as an actor operating beyond the ordinary military chain of command, but they admit that accurately predicting developments in a regime implosion remains challenging. American knowledge of internal balances would be less in-depth today than in the past, even after the killing of the general Qasem Soleimani during Trump’s first term, an event that redefined the balance of power within the Iranian establishment. According to the same sources, the situation is different Venezuelawhere the power structure around Nicolás Maduro was more clearly mapped before the recent crises. Some observers say a window for stronger action opened a few weeks ago when domestic protests in Iran were at their peak. An intervention at that juncture, it is hypothesized, could have strengthened the opposition. Today, however, there are those who question whether that opportunity was missed and whether a military initiative would produce the same impact. This all happens on the eve of a new round of talks Geneva between Washington and Tehran. The president declared that he will follow the negotiations indirectly, calling it crucial and hoping for a pragmatic attitude on the Iranian side. He added that, in his opinion, Tehran wants an agreement to avoid the consequences of a diplomatic failure, reiterating his belief that an agreement remains possible despite the difficulties.
