The Middle East’s New War of Attrition

As military conflicts and civil wars in the Middle East intensify—and as the actors involved grow to include a complex array of states, armed groups, and militias—diplomatic efforts to end these hostilities have repeatedly faltered. The region is now plagued by immense human suffering and catastrophic material and moral losses, pushing it to the edge of collapse. This dangerous trajectory threatens the collective stability, peace, and development of the Middle East and risks extending a war of attrition with no clear end in sight.

Several critical factors have driven the region to this precipice, with Egypt and Jordan caught in the middle. Identifying and analyzing these factors may help find a path toward recovery, with Cairo and Amman as key leaders.

Root Causes 

First, there are the policies and actions of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Israeli government, which rejects the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and to establish an independent state along the 1967 borders. This government has employed military force to reoccupy the Gaza Strip, subjugate its population, and facilitate settler expansion into the West Bank and East Jerusalem, thereby undermining the peaceful solution of the conflict envisioned in the Oslo Accords. This systematic approach to violence extends beyond Palestinian territories. In Lebanon, Israeli actions have claimed lives, seized land, violated sovereignty, and threatened security—with the aims of dismantling Hezbollah’s military, organizational, and financial capacities; keeping the group away from the border areas; and preventing Iranian weapons from ever reaching Israel again. Israel also has conducted repeated strikes on Iranian allies and assets in Syria and Yemen in hopes of curbing Tehran’s regional influence.

Netanyahu and his allies appear resolute in sustaining these conflicts. Rejecting negotiations and political settlements, they pursue the complete elimination or unconditional surrender of their opponents on their own terms. The Israeli leadership recognizes that halting airstrikes, military operations, and targeted assassinations without forcing complete surrender would leave Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militias capable of resuming rocket and drone attacks, thereby threatening Israel’s security. However, this relentless commitment to military escalation overlooks the grave human and material costs and ignores the reality that weapons alone cannot ensure security, protection, or long-term survival without a viable political solution involving Palestinians, Lebanese, and other regional actors.

Then there are Iran’s policies and practices. Since the 1980s, Iran has capitalized on various regional events to construct a network of allied Shia armed movements and militias, positioning them as a strategic line of defense against key regional and international adversaries, including Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States. Iran has invested military, financial, and logistical resources in groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, as well as Iraqi Shia militias and Syrian militias, assigning them roles within their own countries and across the region. These roles have ranged from asserting Shia political influence and government dominance to engaging in hostilities with Israel and challenging American interests. Additionally, Tehran has extended arms, financial support, and technological resources to Hamas and other Palestinian factions that reject political settlements and the two-state solution; embrace armed resistance; and sideline peaceful methods such as civil disobedience, boycotts, or nonviolent resistance. Such a military focus played into the hands of the Israeli far right, compounding the suffering of Palestinians, who remain trapped in a cycle of recurrent conflicts.

In doing all of this, Iran has destabilized several Arab countries, including Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Through its network of armed movements and militias, Iran has repeatedly violated the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and social fabric of these ethnically diverse and multisectarian societies—all under the pretext of preventing attacks by Israel and the United States against its strategic assets, such as weapons stockpiles, vital facilities (including nuclear and oil sites), and institutions of governance and security.

Within this framework, and notwithstanding the historic ideological and political hostilities between Iran and Israel, the Islamic Republic has also emerged as a powerful force in the prolonged war of attrition that threatens stability, peace, and sustainable development across the Middle East. In fact, much like Israel’s far-right government, Iran displays a relentless drive to use military force in pursuit of violent strategies and tactics in conflicts that, in reality, demand political solutions. By empowering militias beyond its borders, Iran distances itself from its regional neighbors while undermining governance and security in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. Additionally, it erodes the feasibility of a two-state solution by militarizing the Palestinian resistance. As it stands, the consequences of the Islamic Republic’s policies echo those of Israel’s right-wing government, entrenching a cycle of destruction.

The ongoing reluctance of the United States—the world’s most influential power with a significant military, security, and diplomatic presence in the Middle East—to play an active role in containing the region’s unyielding war of attrition has also been a factor. Few would dispute that Washington has the leverage to compel Tel Aviv to halt its destructive actions—including ending the current drive to annex parts of Gaza and the West Bank, curbing settler violence in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and ceasing tank incursions into Lebanese territory—given that U.S. arms and funding are pivotal to fueling Israel’s military endeavors. American power is not limitless, but if Washington were to exercise the political will, it could bring Tel Aviv to the negotiating table where a political solution might be forged.

However, the current Democratic administration and the incoming Republican one seem hesitant to take on this role and craft a comprehensive diplomatic vision for the Middle East. Such a vision could revive principles such as “land for peace,” support a two-state solution, and foster regional security arrangements in collaboration with key regional leaders as viable alternatives to war, military action, and unending conflict.

Washington also appears reluctant to invest the necessary effort in formulating a comprehensive strategy for engaging with Iran and its allied armed movements and militias. Such a strategy could contain Tehran’s ambitions through negotiation and collaboration with regional leaders who have shown a willingness to move beyond historical hostilities and seek new paths forward, as evidenced by recent Egyptian-Iranian meetings and the March 2023 agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran to restore diplomatic relations and reduce conflict levels in Yemen. Instead, Washington’s current international priorities are centered on addressing intensifying technological, economic, and military competition with China and managing Russia’s influence, which threatens U.S. interests and those of its allies in Europe and beyond.

This focus on global power struggles leaves the United States hesitant to make the diplomatic strides that could encourage Iran to reconsider its reliance on proxy wars and pave the way for greater stability in the Middle East. By diminishing the military adventures of both Tehran and Tel Aviv, the region could avoid a perilous arms race—both conventional and nuclear—that risks spiraling out of control.

Together, these three factors have escalated the crisis, pushing the Middle East further toward a large-scale, protracted war of attrition.

Undermining Peace and Diplomacy

Today, the Middle East serves as a battleground for Israel, which is engaged in multiple military confrontations in pursuit of the total defeat of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran’s proxies in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Concurrently, Israel’s far right aims to fully dismantle the two-state solution—the foundation of all agreements between Israel and Palestine, guaranteed by international and Arab stakeholders—and to deny the Palestinian people’s right to establish an independent state. Moreover, Israel seeks to shift the regional balance of power in its favor against Iran by exerting military pressure to freeze Iran’s nuclear program, restrict its military capabilities, and diminish its regional influence through the dismantling of its armed network.

The Middle East is also a battleground for military responses from Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militias aimed at countering Israeli actions, alongside limited military reactions from Iran, which has been keen to avoid direct involvement in the regional conflict. Instead, Iran relies on Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis to confront Israel and deter direct attacks on its territory. Iran has opted for a measured approach. So far, it has focused on salvaging what can be saved of its allies’ military and organizational capabilities in the region, drawing on a network of influence developed over decades. This network serves the primary strategic objective of safeguarding the security of the Iranian regime, defending its advanced nuclear and military capabilities, and deterring regional threats from adversaries such as Israel and the United States. Iran aims to achieve this objective without fully engaging in the war, maintaining a stance of calculated escalation against Israel.

The Roles of Egypt and Jordan

As a result of these battlegrounds, Egypt and Jordan, the two Arab states bordering the Palestinian territories, are confronted with significant threats to their national security and their regional roles. Both countries advocate for dialogue, diplomacy, and negotiation as the sole means to resolve wars and conflicts, and both aim to foster security and stability in the region.

One major destabilizing force is the threat of a potential influx of thousands of forcibly displaced Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. Although the Israeli government has ceased to publicly advocate for such an outcome—contrary to statements made by some Israeli officials in the initial weeks of the Gaza war—this scenario remains a tacitly welcomed solution for Israel. The level of destruction inflicted on the Gaza Strip has rendered the area uninhabitable for over 2 million Palestinians, many of whom are being pushed toward the Egyptian border. The extreme Israeli right continues to promote the notion of an alternative Palestinian homeland, envisioning Jordan as a refuge for displaced Palestinians. This approach effectively seeks to erase the kingdom’s identity and transform it into a sanctuary for those uprooted from various parts of Palestine.

Recognizing the imminent threat of forced displacement, Cairo and Amman swiftly mobilized their diplomatic apparatuses to garner widespread support against this potential crisis, successfully pressuring the Netanyahu government to publicly distance itself from displacement scenarios. However, both states must continue to collaborate in addressing the humanitarian catastrophe inflicted on Gaza by Israel. They need to advocate regionally and internationally for an end to the war, work to reduce settler violence in the West Bank, and help the occupied Palestinian state start the much-needed rebuilding efforts.

Another significant threat to Egypt and Jordan is the reality that Israel, despite its peace treaties with both countries, has ceased to be a reliable partner for regional peace or for diplomatic efforts aimed at ending wars and resolving conflicts.

Israel has jeopardized its long-standing peace and relationship with Egypt through its actions in Gaza, as well as by overstepping Egyptian redlines concerning the Philadelphi corridor’s status as a demilitarized zone and the Palestinian management of the Rafah crossing. Similarly, Israel’s repeated military operations and escalating settler violence in the West Bank, along with its failure to freeze settlement activity in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem, have strained its relationship with Jordan. The Netanyahu government’s refusal to cease hostilities in Gaza and elsewhere has further complicated relations between Tel Aviv, Cairo, and Amman.

Since Netanyahu and his far-right government reject the principle of a two-state solution as the foundation for peace in the Middle East, prior Israeli commitments regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state are effectively nullified. This undermines the core of the Egyptian and Jordanian positions, which advocate for peace as a strategic option to uphold the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and to establish an independent state alongside Israel. Netanyahu’s stance—a position supported by nearly 60 percent of Israelis—makes Israel unable to act as a genuine partner with Egypt and Jordan in fostering regional security and stability. Consequently, both Arab countries must approach the Palestinian issue and the broader regional landscape without the expectation of an Israeli peace partner. They must continue their dedicated efforts to promote peace, establish security and stability, and halt the ongoing wars and conflicts, despite the absence of a government in Tel Aviv that shares their vision.

Regional Arms Race

The possibility of the entire region being dragged into a conflict that could lead to widespread violence and destruction remains the most dangerous of all threats. This is a particularly terrifying threat to both Egypt and Jordan, especially as they face dangers on multiple fronts. Egypt is grappling with challenges in the south due to the civil war in Sudan, heightened tensions at the southern entrance to the Red Sea, issues in the Horn of Africa with Ethiopia over water and security, and ongoing civil conflicts in Libya to the west. Similarly, Jordan confronts threats from the north, where widespread smuggling operations from Syria and a deteriorating security situation present significant risk, and from the east, where Shia militias exploit Iraqi territory amid a calculated escalation between Israel and Iran. These multifaceted threats may also trigger an arms race and escalate military actions and reactions between Israel and Iran, potentially culminating in a cycle of mutual annihilation.

Such a regional landscape—taking shape at a moment when the Middle East has yet to recover from the economic, social, and political crises of the past decade, with the Gulf being the only exception—places immense pressure on Egypt and Jordan, both of which advocate for peace, dialogue, diplomacy, and negotiation as their primary means of engaging with their immediate and extended neighborhoods. Cairo and Amman oppose nearly all of Israel’s current actions and reject the abrogation of the two-state solution. They also disapprove of Iran’s regional activities, particularly its focus on defending its own national security while both blatantly disregarding the sovereignty and security of countries such as Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen and effectively pushing Palestinian factions into a precarious situation from which Tehran has distanced itself. At this critical juncture, Egypt and Jordan view with great concern both the Israeli military incursions and Iran’s military pursuits. Their apprehension stems not only from a refusal to engage in a dangerous arms race but also from the recognition that the militarization of regional conflicts undermines their strategic commitment to peace as a viable path forward.