Ammon News : President Donald Trump's recent remarks suggesting an imminent ceasefire in Gaza gave the impression that a resolution to the conflict may be within reach. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement that the war could end immediately—if Hamas were to surrender its weapons—reveals that the core of the crisis hinges on a single, deliberate condition. Netanyahu understands this well and uses it skilfully. Even if consensus is reached on most issues, a single point of contention can derail the entire process.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz’s proposal to establish a so-called 'humanitarian city' atop the ruins of Rafah in southern Gaza—relocating its population there—underscores that Israel’s maneuvering continues unabated. At its core, this plan appears to be an attempt at forced population transfer, regardless of the language used to frame it, whether “Riviera” or “humanitarian zone.” This aligns with Netanyahu’s own remarks to Trump suggesting that Gazans should be given the freedom to stay—or to leave.

As Netanyahu concluded his recent visit to the White House and Katz followed with his own trip to Washington, signs point toward a potential new phase of escalation. Israel has left many fronts open, unresolved, and strategically ambiguous. Since October 7, lowering the intensity of one front has consistently meant raising the pressure on another.

Lebanon may now be the next flashpoint. The growing focus on disarming Hezbollah, coupled with the likely failure to do so, could push the situation toward explosion. At the same time, increasing tensions along the Lebanon-Syria axis represent an additional layer of volatility. The two countries may be heading toward direct confrontation—something Lebanon, already reeling from the recent war with Israel, can hardly afford. Internally, the threat of terrorism is resurging, as signs of active ISIS cells continue to emerge.

Although the recent flare-up between Iran and Israel has temporarily cooled, it remains unresolved. The front is still active, even if not in open warfare. Israel is unlikely to abandon its operations in Iranian skies—or on the ground—until it achieves a clear strategic breakthrough. The rapid pace of Israeli rearmament, combined with U.S. signals of providing Israel with bunker-busting bombs, suggests that the option of military escalation remains very much alive. Tehran knows this well.

With few tools left at its disposal, Iran seems to be leaning once again on its regional proxies. The Houthis, for instance, have shifted from sporadic rocket launches toward Israel to targeting international maritime shipping more directly—attacking, seizing, or even sinking vessels and detaining their crews. This tactical evolution is aimed at heightening international pressure and sending a message: this confrontation stems from tensions with Iran, not merely from the war in Gaza, as the Houthis previously claimed.

Iraq may soon find itself pulled back into the regional escalation as well. Recent movements targeting the Kurdistan region could spill over into attacks on U.S. interests—be they military installations or private companies. This trajectory could escalate further in the coming days, positioning Iraq as a new axis in the broader map of potential flashpoints.

While international discourse focuses on the possibility of a ceasefire in Gaza, the reality on the ground may be leading elsewhere. For Israel, the next phase may be marked by a return to 'open arenas'—from Lebanon to Yemen and Iraq. Yet perhaps the most significant arena will be Iran itself, should negotiations fail to restart.

Unlike the brief 12-day war that shaped the earlier phase of confrontation, any future conflict may take a very different form. Israel is likely to focus on destabilizing Iran from within and neutralizing its ability to broaden the scope of regional confrontation. Surprise and intelligence-led operations may become the defining features of Israel’s next moves.

Ammon News : President Donald Trump's recent remarks suggesting an imminent ceasefire in Gaza gave the impression that a resolution to the conflict may be within reach. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement that the war could end immediately—if Hamas were to surrender its weapons—reveals that the core of the crisis hinges on a single, deliberate condition. Netanyahu understands this well and uses it skilfully. Even if consensus is reached on most issues, a single point of contention can derail the entire process.

Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz’s proposal to establish a so-called 'humanitarian city' atop the ruins of Rafah in southern Gaza—relocating its population there—underscores that Israel’s maneuvering continues unabated. At its core, this plan appears to be an attempt at forced population transfer, regardless of the language used to frame it, whether “Riviera” or “humanitarian zone.” This aligns with Netanyahu’s own remarks to Trump suggesting that Gazans should be given the freedom to stay—or to leave.

As Netanyahu concluded his recent visit to the White House and Katz followed with his own trip to Washington, signs point toward a potential new phase of escalation. Israel has left many fronts open, unresolved, and strategically ambiguous. Since October 7, lowering the intensity of one front has consistently meant raising the pressure on another.

Lebanon may now be the next flashpoint. The growing focus on disarming Hezbollah, coupled with the likely failure to do so, could push the situation toward explosion. At the same time, increasing tensions along the Lebanon-Syria axis represent an additional layer of volatility. The two countries may be heading toward direct confrontation—something Lebanon, already reeling from the recent war with Israel, can hardly afford. Internally, the threat of terrorism is resurging, as signs of active ISIS cells continue to emerge.

Although the recent flare-up between Iran and Israel has temporarily cooled, it remains unresolved. The front is still active, even if not in open warfare. Israel is unlikely to abandon its operations in Iranian skies—or on the ground—until it achieves a clear strategic breakthrough. The rapid pace of Israeli rearmament, combined with U.S. signals of providing Israel with bunker-busting bombs, suggests that the option of military escalation remains very much alive. Tehran knows this well.

With few tools left at its disposal, Iran seems to be leaning once again on its regional proxies. The Houthis, for instance, have shifted from sporadic rocket launches toward Israel to targeting international maritime shipping more directly—attacking, seizing, or even sinking vessels and detaining their crews. This tactical evolution is aimed at heightening international pressure and sending a message: this confrontation stems from tensions with Iran, not merely from the war in Gaza, as the Houthis previously claimed.

Iraq may soon find itself pulled back into the regional escalation as well. Recent movements targeting the Kurdistan region could spill over into attacks on U.S. interests—be they military installations or private companies. This trajectory could escalate further in the coming days, positioning Iraq as a new axis in the broader map of potential flashpoints.

While international discourse focuses on the possibility of a ceasefire in Gaza, the reality on the ground may be leading elsewhere. For Israel, the next phase may be marked by a return to 'open arenas'—from Lebanon to Yemen and Iraq. Yet perhaps the most significant arena will be Iran itself, should negotiations fail to restart.

Unlike the brief 12-day war that shaped the earlier phase of confrontation, any future conflict may take a very different form. Israel is likely to focus on destabilizing Iran from within and neutralizing its ability to broaden the scope of regional confrontation. Surprise and intelligence-led operations may become the defining features of Israel’s next moves.

http://en.ammonnews.net/article/82982