The last two weeks have seen the Middle East teetering on a knife's edge. While tensions have been high since the Hamas attacks last October, the developments in the previous two weeks have been particularly concerning. Tensions began to rise on September 17 when the pagers used by Hezbollah members exploded all of a sudden, followed by similar explosions of other communication devices.

These events took place at a time when Israel shifted its attention towards its northern border with Lebanon. Since then, tensions have mounted with the killing of Hassan Nasrallah and other top Hezbollah commanders. Iran's airstrikes directly targeting Israel mark a dangerous point of escalation.

As the threat of a larger regional war looms, is there a way out of this crisis? Negotiations for a ceasefire have been taking place for the past several months. Despite the efforts, we are nowhere close to a negotiated settlement. The heart of the matter is that Iran - along with its proxies and Israel - has taken a maximalist position on the negotiating table. This makes it far more difficult to arrive at a negotiated settlement.

Hezbollah Can't Take A U-Turn
Hezbollah entered the conflict almost immediately after the October 7 attacks last year. The group has aimed to put pressure on Israel by opening up another front alongside Gaza. It has linked negotiations with Israel to the ongoing situation there. Any peace settlement along Israel's northern frontiers will be dependent on a similar settlement in Gaza. Hezbollah and its leadership have pushed themselves into a corner by taking such a maximalist position on the issue. The Israeli leadership knows this and has steadily pushed the Hezbollah up an escalator ladder. From Hezbollah's point of view, any negotiation or compromise would mean a U-turn unless it is part of a larger settlement involving Gaza.

Iran In A Bind
Iran is also in a very delicate position. Like Hezbollah, the Iranian state has also linked negotiations with Israel to the ongoing situation in Gaza. More importantly, the developments over the last two weeks have significantly weakened Iran's larger strategic and security position. Militarily, Iran cannot match up to Israel. Hence, a conventional war against Israel is not in Iranian interests. Over the years, Iran has tried to overcome this challenge by building a network of proxies like Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. While Hamas has been weakened significantly since the October 7 attacks, the last two weeks have also seen the Hezbollah being dealt a major blow. The 'axis of resistance' Iran had carefully built over the past several years has weakened substantially.

This puts the Iranian state in a precarious position. Though it would like to avoid escalation, it has little choice. The killing of Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil and the successful operation to take out Hassan Nasrallah came as major blows to Iranian prestige. Therefore, as many predicted, the regime had little choice but to launch a direct attack on Israel. With a weakened network of proxies, the Iranian regime would be cautious when approaching negotiations.

Why Israel Is Willing To Go Further
Israel has shown a greater willingness to escalate the conflict. Over the last two weeks, it has almost entirely taken out Hezbollah's top leadership and launched a ground operation in Lebanon. There are two factors why the Israeli state is taking a more maximalist stance. Firstly, Netanyahu's political future is precarious. Before the Hamas attack on October 7, there were clear indications of Netanyahu's falling popular support. From January to October last year, there were widespread protests against his government's proposed judicial reforms. These protests subsided only after the Hamas attacks.

Netanyahu faces an uncertain future once the conflict comes to an end. Continued conflict and further escalation would benefit him as they would preserve his authority. His popularity ratings have slowly risen as the war has dragged on. Therefore, from Netanyahu's perspective, there is little incentive to actively negotiate.

Secondly, over the last two weeks, Israel has gained the upper hand. With the Hezbollah and Hamas severely weakened, escalation would force Iran to get directly involved. This is in Israel's interests. Recent statements by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett underscored Israel's stance. With Iran's proxies severely weakened, he views this as the ideal opportunity to change the Middle East's power balance. Given these realities, Israel is not likely to make a major compromise on the negotiating table.

Negotiation Is Difficult, But Possible
With all sides taking a maximalist position, does this mean a negotiated settlement is impossible? Not really. While it may be difficult, it is within the realm of possibility. The key will be to find off-ramps for the various parties involved. The US, in particular, will have a crucial role to play. In April this year, when Iran launched a similar attack on Israel, the US played a decisive role in convincing Israel to tone down its retaliation. Can the Biden administration pull off something similar? That would then offer a good starting point to begin the negotiations. The next few days are going to be crucial for the region. If further escalation is averted, bringing all parties to the negotiating table is possible.

Author: Prof. Sanjal Shastri, Faculty of International Studies, FLAME University