Some are expressing frustration that Iran’s conditions to end the war have not explicitly and unequivocally included a demand to end the Israeli occupation of Palestine and dismantle the apartheid regime.

Among the conditions circulated in Iranian and sympathetic media—though not formally confirmed by Tehran—is the proposition that any resolution must include an end to Israel’s war across all fronts: Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and beyond. However, these conditions did not specifically prioritize the freedom of Palestine as a precondition to ending the war.

That frustration is neither misplaced nor marginal. For many, Palestine is not one issue among others, but the defining axis of the conflict itself. Precisely for that reason, however, it cannot be approached in isolation. To treat the current war solely through what has or has not been explicitly stated risks narrowing a profoundly complex confrontation into a single dimension, when in fact it is through this broader, interconnected struggle that the question of Palestine is ultimately being shaped, contested, and potentially resolved.

Several strands of analysis capture elements of this reality, but few sustain it. Some focus narrowly on Israeli domestic politics, arguing that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging the war to preserve his coalition, delay accountability, and avoid legal consequences that could end his political career.

Others shift to a broader strategic reading, situating the war within Israel’s long-standing pursuit of regional dominance—neutralizing adversaries, expanding normalization, and consolidating its position as the central power in the region.

A third line of analysis, closer to the mainstream, continues to operate within the declared framework of Washington and Tel Aviv. Even when it introduces criticism, it remains anchored in the language of Iran’s nuclear program, Israeli “security,” and the familiar architecture of justification.

READ: Israeli media reports consolidation of ‘yellow line’ as Gaza border reality

This framework is not neutral. It systematically evades assigning responsibility to Israel for the war, just as it has persistently refused to confront the genocide in Gaza. Even its criticisms of US President Donald Trump remain procedural—focused on the White House’s unclear objectives, poor coordination, and contradictory messaging—rather than on the political and moral logic driving the war itself.

Between narrowly internal explanations and an increasingly hollow mainstream narrative, the broader historical trajectory disappears from view.

The truth lies elsewhere.

The Middle East has not entered a crisis suddenly. It has been shaped—deliberately—for instability. What we are witnessing is not an abrupt rupture, but the acceleration of a long-standing historical process that is now reaching a decisive phase.

The Middle East has not entered a crisis suddenly. It has been shaped—deliberately—for instability. What we are witnessing is not an abrupt rupture, but the acceleration of a long-standing historical process that is now reaching a decisive phase.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, concluded between Britain and France, did not simply divide territory; it engineered fragmentation. Arbitrary borders were imposed with little regard for historical, cultural, or social realities, ensuring that the region would remain politically........

© Middle East Monitor