How difficult it is to end a war

Ending a war is more difficult than deciding to wage one. The one backing down must offer a convincing story. He must offer explanations and justifications. He must compare the losses and gains and say which of the declared goals were achieved. He must say if he feels more secure after the fighting stops and if the end of the war is just a truce in preparation for other wars.

Ending wars was easier in the past because they were waged by armies that received orders from governments. Today, some wars are different, especially when an army is confronted with factions spread across a region.

Most dangerous of all is the belief of the warring parties that they are waging an existential conflict from which they cannot back down. How hard it is to end a war when one cannot turn to a neutral and honest mediator who can fairly tend to wounds and interests.

The most dangerous aspect of the roaming war the Middle East has been enduring since Oct. 7 is that it is taking place amid a very volatile international situation. The world is living without safety valves. The world has lost faith in the UN Security Council, which has proven ineffective in addressing the wars. Relations between major powers are at their worst in decades.

The world has lost faith in the UN Security Council, which has proven ineffective in addressing the wars

Ghassan Charbel

One simply has to look at how Russian soldiers are being killed by American, German or British shells. And how Western weapons have allowed Ukraine — in the third year of war with Russia — to make an incursion into Russia itself in scenes unprecedented since the Second World War.

Volodymyr Zelensky was elated at the development, describing the master of the Kremlin as a “sick old man from Red Square who constantly threatens everyone with the red button.” He “will not dictate any of his red lines to us.” The truth is that the Ukrainian army erased the red lines when it dared to breach Russian territories. Vladimir Putin himself had crossed the red lines in 2022 when he invaded Ukraine and returned Europe to a time when borders were undermined.

Zelensky’s words reflect his fear. He fears that he may be forced to stop the war and see the Russian forces win a significant portion of Ukrainian territory. A frightened man can become frightening if he keeps pursuing revenge for wounds and gambling with what remains.

The same can be said of Putin. He was frightened of the NATO weapons that were approaching Russia’s borders, so he decided to pounce on Ukraine to thwart its Atlantic dreams and launch an operation aimed at depleting the West. The danger grows when the frightened man boasts a frightening arsenal. Moscow’s constant reminders of its nuclear weapons only accelerate the drive of regional countries to obtain a “nuclear insurance policy.”

How dangerous a war is when your enemy refuses to surrender despite its heavy losses and finds a side pumping aid into its veins. The inability to deal the knockout blow to decide a war will only prolong the conflict indefinitely.

The Middle East imploded amid this tumultuous international scene. Yahya Sinwar launched an operation that soon engulfed the region. It was difficult for Hezbollah to remain on the sidelines of the war on Gaza. A day after the war erupted, this party launched a “support front” for Gaza from Lebanon. In all likelihood, no one believed that the Gaza war and the support front would still be burning 10 months later, with no serious signs that they will be extinguished any time soon.

Netanyahu was aware that Iran and Hezbollah do not want a comprehensive confrontation, but he tried to lure them in

Ghassan Charbel

Throughout this time, the US has managed to prevent the eruption of a full-scale war in the region. The recent trading of blows along the Lebanese-Israeli border — hours before a new round of ceasefire negotiations in Cairo — underscored just how much the various fires in the region are tied together.

Iran has openly said it does not want a comprehensive war and that it will program its retaliation to Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination in a way that will not drag it into conflict. Hezbollah has also said that it does not want a comprehensive war as it pursues its retaliation for the assassination of its military commander, Fouad Shukr. So, it chose purely military targets in its response on Sunday.

But the Haniyeh and Shukr assassinations took place in Tehran and Beirut, respectively. The choice of location was no coincidence. In all likelihood, Benjamin Netanyahu was aware that Iran and Hezbollah do not want a comprehensive confrontation, but he tried to lure them in and he dragged American warships along too. Iran and Hezbollah cannot not retaliate for Haniyeh and Shukr’s assassinations. This has to do with Iran and Hezbollah’s image and their deterrence power and the risk of losing it.

On Oct. 7, Israel appeared lost and frightened. Ten months later, it is frightening. It has committed an open massacre in Gaza, killed hundreds of Hezbollah fighters, launched strikes on Syria and Yemen and hit positions in Iran and tested Iran’s image and deterrence.

How difficult it is to end a war. Hamas will not obtain a truce that matches the extent of the losses it and the people of Gaza have incurred. Hezbollah is evidently coming under major pressure to agree to the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1701. Netanyahu has yet to achieve his declared goal of eliminating Hamas and the residents of Israel’s north are still displaced. Iran itself will find it difficult to relinquish the Palestinian arm of its axis of resistance. Does the Biden administration have a solution that will bring the Middle East back from the edge of the abyss?

• Ghassan Charbel is editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper. X: @GhasanCharbel

This article first appeared in Asharq Al-Awsat.