On the recent ceasefire and its regional framework.
On the recent ceasefire and its regional framework.
By Mohammed Sabreen, from Cairo / Egypt
US President Donald Trump is pursuing the elusive “peace” in the Middle East through the gateway of ending the war in Gaza. Trump has tried hard to market himself as a “peacemaker” and end numerous conflicts, hoping to win the Nobel Peace Prize. However, the Nobel Committee was not convinced and chose the Venezuelan opposition leader.
While the Israeli Prime Minister imagined he was redrawing the map of the Middle East, his dreams have evaporated into the sands of the Middle East, besieged by a Palestinian state and international isolation.
At the same time, Hamas is seeking a role for itself in the new landscape, and the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to jump on the bandwagon and claim its presence.
In contrast, Egypt has emerged as one of the biggest winners, and its leaders and venerable institutions have proven that Cairo is an indispensable figure in the Middle East equation. What does the ceasefire agreement in Gaza tell us?
“Prophet of Wrath” Attacks Netanyahu
Israeli General Yitzhak Brick, nicknamed the “Prophet of Wrath,” asserted that the recent successes in Lebanon, especially the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah and other senior Hezbollah figures, do not change Israel’s sad reality without achieving its goal.
In an article for the Hebrew newspaper Maariv, Brick said, “The problem with most of the public and its leaders is that they look through a keyhole and only see what is happening at a particular time in the present, and what is happening at a particular moment. They do not look to the future, that is, the overall picture and the long-term vision.”
The general, nicknamed the “Israeli Prophet of Wrath,” emphasized, “We must act wisely to achieve these goals, the most important of which are: the release of the kidnapped soldiers who are dying in the tunnels, and after a short time, there will be no more kidnapped survivors among them; the return of the displaced from the north and south to their homes, the restoration of the destroyed areas, and the facilitation of the restoration of their livelihoods; and the restoration of the Israeli economy, which is currently in a state of collapse.”
He added, “And restoring international relations with the world, which is evident these days in Israel’s isolation from the world, in the cancellation of flights on a scale we have never seen before, the air blockade of Israel, the economic boycott, the ban on arms shipments to our forces, and the decisions that will be made by the court in The Hague, which will remove the State of Israel from the Commonwealth of Nations.”
The general went on to explain the goals: “Restoring the resilience of Israeli society after the war of attrition that has been ongoing for a year, which is deepening unjustified hatred among segments of the population and eating us away from within. Restoring the capabilities of the ground army, which is no longer capable of fighting and achieving victory even in a single arena. Ending the war of attrition that is destroying every good part of us, and reaching agreements brokered by the United States and other countries.” Brick emphasized that “it is time for Bibi (Benjamin Netanyahu) and his supporters to realize that the slogans of ‘totally destroying Hamas’ and ‘subduing Hezbollah’ are unattainable goals, and that trying to achieve them is leading him and his government to irrational decisions and to the continuation of the war of attrition that is causing great harm to Israel. By implementing these decisions, we may not achieve the truly important and achievable goals if Bibi and his friends do not come to their senses soon. Benjamin Netanyahu’s behavior could lead to Israel’s collapse.”
He added, “In my humble opinion, a regional defense alliance must be established with the United States and moderate Arab states, standing together as one body against the new axis of evil: Russia, China, Iran, and their allies.”
The general continued: “Now is the right time to settle our affairs with Hamas and Hezbollah through US mediation and on better terms for us after the elimination of Nasrallah and his companions. I have long expressed my firm position that we should not enter with Israeli ground forces up to the Litani River, because such an entry will not be successful for the many reasons I mentioned previously. I am very pleased that the Israeli army is currently entering Lebanon in a targeted manner.”
Brick emphasized that “we must understand that even occupying territory in Lebanon will not bring us the long-awaited turning point to end the war of attrition, because the Israeli army will eventually withdraw its forces. Moreover, Hezbollah will continue to fire rockets and missiles at Israel and the north from distances greater than the areas it has captured.” He added, “Even if the Israeli army wanted to remain in the areas it occupied, it would be unable to do so due to the lack of surplus ground forces, not to mention the drastic reductions in the ground forces over the past 20 years. The Israeli army would be forced to evacuate the territories it seized, as happened in the Gaza Strip against Hamas, and the territories would be retaken by Hezbollah terrorists.”
The Israeli general emphasized that “Bibi and his government do not want to reach an agreement until after the ‘complete destruction of Hamas’ and the ‘surrender of Hezbollah,’ because this is a prime minister who is still in a state of arrogance and euphoria after eliminating Nasrallah, completely ignoring the reality around him, and living in a virtual reality. According to him, he can win the war against Iran and its proxies.”
General Brick, 75, is known in Israel as the “Prophet of Wrath” because he predicted an attack by thousands of Palestinian militants on the Gaza Strip-area settlements similar to Operation Protective Edge. He also predicts a massive Palestinian attack on settlers in the West Bank in the near future.
“Mockery” of the End of History
The Middle East often confuses many experts. Whenever an end to history appears on the horizon, the region shocks many by telling them that what they witnessed was merely the end of a chapter, not the end of history.
The shifting sands of the Middle East have long swallowed wild illusions, such as a decisive victory and solid alliances that would transform the Middle East. The next day, or the days, months, and even years that followed, often carried a bitter reality.
The victory was not overwhelming, and despite the defeat of 1967, Egypt and the “lifeless” Arabs returned to achieve the great victory of October 1973, and Cairo reclaimed its land through war and peace.
It seems that Israel does not realize that it is facing an enemy that will not fall or surrender despite heavy losses in its ranks, and that alliances are temporary on soft ground. The last person who seems likely to taste the bitter cup of reality in the Middle East is Benjamin Netanyahu. It is a bitter irony that the “new face” of the Middle East, which Netanyahu has so often and arrogantly spoken of, according to Israel’s vision, and which has been drawn with iron and fire, is in fact a more militarized and tense Middle East, one in which a potential nuclear race is accelerating, while Israel’s deterrence capacity is dwindling.
It is now clear, two years after the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, that Netanyahu finds himself facing a reality completely different from what he promised. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that while Netanyahu has repeatedly proclaimed that the war in Gaza “changed the face of the Middle East,” the facts reveal that what has actually changed is Israel’s position within this new Middle East; from a supposedly victorious axis to a state surrounded by tense fronts and fluid alliances, and a regional environment now viewed as a source of threat rather than a potential partner.
The newspaper noted that in December 2024, Netanyahu boasted: “We have changed the face of the Middle East. Syria is no longer the same, Lebanon is no longer the same, and even Iran is no longer the same.” However, after more than 600 days of war, his achievements on the ground appear more like temporary gains on a turbulent chessboard than radical shifts in the power equation.
At the same time, Netanyahu boasted that the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime at the end of 2024 was one of Israel’s most prominent “strategic victories.” However, the current Syrian scene reveals the fragility of this claim. The new regime, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, supported by a Western-Arab alliance, still lacks internal legitimacy and institutional stability.
The powers that supported the establishment of this regime, from Washington to Riyadh and Ankara, have begun to exert varying pressure on it, at a time when Israel is trying to secure new security arrangements that guarantee its depth in the Golan Heights and restrict Iran’s movements south of Damascus.
However, Israel’s ambitions clash with a different vision among its Arab-Western coalition partners, who want a unified, sovereign Syria, not a state divided into ethnic cantons, as Netanyahu desires. This makes an “Israeli victory” in Syria more like a post-dated political check, liable to be canceled as soon as alliances shift or internal tensions erupt.
Experts believe that in Lebanon, at one point, the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah seemed to mark the end of the “Hezbollah state” as a strategic achievement for Israel. The Iranian line extending from Tehran to Beirut was severed, the party’s military and organizational capabilities were diminished, and the new Lebanese government declared its commitment to disarm the militias.
Endings may seem strange
But behind this optimistic outlook lies a fragile equation. Despite losing its political and military leadership, Hezbollah remains deeply entrenched in Lebanon’s social and political structure, and any attempt to isolate it by force could ignite a new civil war.
Moreover, Lebanon is reeling from an unprecedented economic collapse, which cannot be overcome without genuine security stability. Here, the fundamental contradiction in Israeli calculations becomes apparent: weakening Hezbollah did not produce a more stable Lebanon, but rather a country on the brink of a new explosion.
On the other hand, Israel and the United States consider the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities to be the culmination of the “seven-front” war. However, the realistic assessment shows that the Iranian threat has not been eliminated, but rather transformed. While Tehran’s influence has declined in Syria and Lebanon, it has not been strategically defeated and still holds significant regional leverage.
Although Iran has lost some of its influence, it has flexibly repositioned itself. It continues to support the Houthis, who have become an independent actor in Yemen. It maintains its political influence in Iraq despite its weak military capabilities, and insists on its right to enrich uranium despite sanctions.
With the escalating talk of reactivating the “trigger” mechanism to reimpose sanctions, Tehran appears prepared for a diplomatic and perhaps security confrontation, even if it leads to its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The height of irony remains how Israel began from the height of pride in its proximity to peace without returning land, at a time when the world was beginning to accustom itself to the urgency of the Palestinian cause and to proceed with normalization with neighboring countries without any price. Days before the “Al-Aqsa Flood” attack, Netanyahu declared from the UN podium that Israel was “on the threshold of a historic peace” that would end the Arab-Israeli conflict.
While Netanyahu was seeking a “map of opportunities” that would establish Israel as the axis of regional security, the long war resulted in a new map of threats, foremost among them: the decline of Israel’s international standing and its being considered a pariah state in academic and cultural forums.
The years following October 7th demonstrate that what Netanyahu called “changing the face of the Middle East” was nothing more than a recycled version of old illusions. The Middle East has not changed in Israel’s favor, but rather against it. Its temporary alliances are eroding, its adversaries are repositioning themselves, and Western support is eroding under the pressure of global public opinion. Instead of normalization, it has plunged headlong into isolation. All that remains is for Netanyahu to depart the political stage and go to prison in Israel, or be arrested as a war criminal and tried before the International Criminal Court. These endings may seem strange, but that’s how the Middle East has always been.
Hamas’s Transformations and the Muslim Brotherhood’s Fingers
The Muslim Brotherhood’s statement about a ceasefire in Gaza has caught the attention of experts, who believe the group is attempting to establish a new foothold in the political scene through Gaza.
While Hamas’s head of negotiating delegation, Khalil al-Hayya, stood in Cairo announcing the ceasefire in the Palestinian enclave, he was in fact announcing shifts in the movement’s rhetoric and thinking, and the details of the new phase and its continued role as a major player in the political scene. However, this came only two hours after the Muslim Brotherhood’s statement, which experts considered “no coincidence.”
Major General Adel Azab, former Assistant Minister of Interior and Director of Counterterrorism in the Egyptian National Security Sector, says that Khalil al-Hayya announced from Cairo the conclusion of an agreement “ending the war and beginning the implementation of a permanent ceasefire.” However, he did not speak with the tone of a fighter, but rather with the tongue of a statesman reading the terms of a treaty. He spoke of “guarantees from the US administration and mediators,” in an explicit recognition of the legitimacy of the relationship with Washington after years of estrangement. He added that what was striking was that the vocabulary of the speech had changed radically: from “flood” and “battle” to “withdrawal,” “prisoner exchange,” and “guarantees.” He also thanked Egypt, Qatar, Türkiye, and Iran, presenting a map of new regional alliances that combine the field and politics.
Change in Language and Change in Terminology
Major General Azab pointed out that, in his speech, Khalil al-Hayya completely avoided using the term “Al-Aqsa Flood,” which the movement had been insistently repeating since October 7, and merely repeated the phrase “October 7 Battle” more than once. This linguistic shift is not a trivial detail; rather, it reflects a tactical shift in the movement’s political and media awareness. The term “flood,” which was initially promoted as a heroic slogan, was transformed in Western media into a symbol of the wanton destruction Hamas inflicted on Israeli civilians. Israeli media exploited it to justify the “counter-flood” Israel perpetrated in Gaza before Western public opinion. Therefore, the movement replaced the name with a date, in an attempt to reframe its narrative with more internationally acceptable language and present itself as a disciplined political party, not a rampant revolutionary organization.
“Suspicious” synchronization between the statement and the statements
He continued: “What is striking is that the Muslim Brotherhood’s statement was issued on Thursday evening, followed only about two hours later by Khalil al-Hayya’s speech from Cairo, in a chronological sequence that cannot be considered a coincidence. With this synchronicity and this unified approach, there is clear coordination in the announced discourse, confirming that the organization’s directives do not remain ink on paper, but are immediately translated on the ground through its arm in Gaza.”
From Resistance to State
He added that when al-Hayya said, “Peace be upon Gaza, upon its men, women, and children…,” he was closing the chapter on war and opening the chapter on politics. The movement, which fought fierce battles on the ground, now speaks in diplomatic language resembling the rhetoric of governments. He argued that “Hamas has moved from revolutionary legitimacy to political legitimacy and has achieved what it could not achieve with the gun: de facto recognition, diplomatic cover, and a negotiating position in the region.”
Congruity of Rhetoric and Complementary Roles
Major General Azab believes that when we compare the Brotherhood’s statement with al-Hayya’s speech, it becomes clear that they are two sides of the same coin. They both use the same language, praise the same mediators, and present the truce as a “political victory,” not a defeat. He noted that the Brotherhood is speaking from exile in a diplomatic tone, and Hamas is speaking from Cairo in a field-based tone, but the message is the same: that the Brotherhood project is reorganizing its ranks through its Palestinian arm, and that the ceasefire, in this sense, is not the end of the war, but rather the beginning of a new phase in which the language of resistance recedes in the face of the reality of interests, and in which the voice of arms is replaced by the language of guarantees. Major General Azab considered that “the Brotherhood’s statement and al-Hayya’s remarks were not a coincidence, but rather a comprehensive plan paving the way for the return of political Islam to the scene. This time, however, they are in a new guise: less noisy, more cunning, and closer to a ‘roadmap’ in which the group attempts to regain its lost legitimacy through Gaza, at a time when the world appears to be beginning to treat Hamas not as an armed opponent but as an unavoidable political actor.”
Meanwhile, Egyptian national security expert and Akhbar al-Youm journalist Mohamed Makhlouf explained that the Muslim Brotherhood’s statement regarding the ceasefire in Gaza was not merely a reaction to a political event, but rather seemed like a strategic message stating that the group, despite its exclusion from the scene, has not disappeared and that it is still capable of repositioning itself through the Palestinian gateway. As for the statements of Khalil al-Hayya, head of the Hamas negotiating delegation, they were the field version of the same statement.
He considered that the two sides used “the same language, the same discourse, and the same content, converging on a central idea: that political Islam has not died, but is merely reformulating itself from the ashes.”
Makhlouf explained that the Muslim Brotherhood wrote its statement in a dual language that combines the tone of resistance with the weight of politics. It speaks of the steadfastness of the people and the jihad of resistance, while simultaneously praising Egypt, Qatar, Türkiye, and the United States. This combination reflects the group’s old-fashioned pragmatism, which is religious on the surface but self-interested in essence. He considered that when the statement described the truce agreement as a “major political achievement,” it was not honoring the Palestinian negotiator, but rather giving credit to the international organization of the Brotherhood, which wants to be remembered as still holding the reins on the Gaza issue.
Hidden Messages and Linguistic Maneuver
Makhlouf pointed out that the most prominent sentence in the statement came when it said: “The group congratulates the Palestinian people and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) on this achievement.” He considered this separation between the people and the movement not spontaneous, but rather a calculated maneuver. The Brotherhood seeks to exonerate itself before the world of any direct connection to Hamas, while maintaining its organizational ties in secret. He emphasized that it is “a verbal, not ideological, disavowal that protects the group from prosecution without severing its ties to the movement.”
Makhlouf stated that behind this calculated language are three main messages: First, the Brotherhood remains the intellectual driving force behind Hamas, and that the group remains its operational arm on the ground. Second, the international organization seeks to return to the scene with softer, more humane language. Third, the possibility of Hamas surrendering its weapons does not worry the group. The Brotherhood has historically been accustomed to concealing its military wing when regimes are in a tight squeeze, maintaining a political facade to survive. What is happening today in Gaza is a repetition of the same pattern.
Egypt Playing with the Big Boys
With calm and patience, Egypt was able to put the Gaza tragedy back on track, reaching an agreement on the mechanisms for implementing the first phase of the ceasefire between Hamas and Israel.
Perhaps Cairo’s most notable achievement was aborting the scenario of displacing the people of Gaza, presenting a proposal for a technocratic committee to govern Gaza, and presenting a detailed plan for the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Perhaps Egypt’s most important contribution was its resistance to all the provocations and attacks it was subjected to, its confidence in its weight and role, and the strength of its institutions in accomplishing the mission, and its willingness to coordinate with Arab and Islamic countries and the US administration to end this devastating war. This is a new achievement credited to Egypt, its political leadership, and its venerable institutions.
This was recently made public, as US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steven Witkoff praised the Egyptian team during the negotiations. During his meeting with President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, he said, “I would like to point out that you have an amazing team,” and “without your leadership and the unique skills of your team, we would not have been able to achieve so much. They have demonstrated exceptional competence at crucial moments.” He added, referring to the head of Egyptian General Intelligence, Major General Hassan Rashad, “History books may not record the details of what happened, but without you, sir, we would not have reached this outcome.”
Indispensable player
Once again, Cairo asserts itself as an indispensable player in Middle Eastern equations, amid Western research centers’ interest in Egypt’s role and the vital role of Egyptian General Intelligence.
Many Western circles have focused on the Egyptian role and the repercussions of the war in Gaza on Middle Eastern stability. It can be said that the most important Western conclusion is that Egypt, in addition to acting out of humanitarian motives and acting as a neutral mediator, has clear national interests that form part of its calculations regarding Gaza. Egypt’s strategy includes gaining international acceptance, protecting its stability, border security, and regional influence.
The summary of the research centers’ assessments shows that they attach great importance to the Egyptian role and consider it an influential factor in the Gaza issue, particularly in political and security mediation, in addition to its significant role in preserving the security consequences that could threaten Egypt.
At the same time, Egyptian intelligence’s ability to coordinate with several countries and mediate highly sensitive issues, such as prisoner negotiations, ceasefires, and the provision of humanitarian aid, is praised.
On the other hand, these positions raise the difficulties Egypt faces in ensuring the parties adhere to the agreed-upon terms and ensuring the implementation of understandings on the ground.
At the same time, it is natural for Egypt to face, and its role is undoubtedly influenced by international and regional pressures, which attempt to restrict it or alter its approach, especially if tensions escalate or the priorities of other countries change.
The British think tank Chatham House explains in a study titled “Egypt and the Gulf” that Egypt and Qatar have developed a “division of roles” in crisis management in Gaza after Hamas took control of the Strip. The center praised Egyptian intelligence for playing a dual role at the security and political levels, mediating between Israel and Hamas, and also in the Palestinian reconciliation effort between Hamas and Fatah.
It noted that Egypt’s role is viewed as a stabilizing factor in the regional context, preventing the expansion of security crises and controlling the impact on the border. On the other hand, Chatham House published another analysis on September 17, 2025, examining how Egypt views Israel as an imminent threat and the impact this has on its strategy, including the Gaza issue.
The report explained that Egypt is aware of the potential danger if the war expands, or if the situation in Gaza changes beyond its control.
The Chatham House experts’ analysis concluded that Egyptian mediation is being used as a defensive and strategic tool to avoid direct involvement and ensure that the political and diplomatic track remains dominant.
Dance with the wolves
On the other hand, amid the ongoing war in Gaza, the Egyptian General Intelligence Service has emerged as one of the most important regional players in managing the crisis and reaching understandings between the warring parties.
At the same time, thanks to its geographical location and historical ties with both Israel and the Palestinian factions, Cairo, represented by the General Intelligence Service, has become the most acceptable and trusted mediator in the complex equation of the war. This role stems from a deep Egyptian awareness that the continuation of the fighting or the collapse of the humanitarian situation in the Strip poses a direct threat to national security, particularly in Sinai. Subsequently, the intelligence service worked to manage delicate ceasefire negotiations, ensure the passage of humanitarian aid, and arrange prisoner exchange deals, in close coordination with the United States, Israel, and the Palestinian parties. The Egyptian role also transcended its traditional security nature, taking on a political and strategic dimension aimed at formulating a post-war vision that includes the reconstruction of Gaza and the reform of the Palestinian political structure. In this sense, Egyptian General Intelligence became the central pillar of any possible settlement, combining intelligence and diplomatic tools to simultaneously maintain stability and protect Egyptian and regional interests.
During the Sharm el-Sheikh talks, significant roles for Egyptian intelligence emerged. Egyptian special forces were seen surrounding Khalil al-Hayya, the leader of the Hamas movement and head of the movement’s delegation to the Sharm el-Sheikh negotiations, providing him with protection. This was captured on television, capturing the attention of many Egyptians.
These forces, known as “GIS,” are affiliated with Egyptian intelligence, and their presence with the Hamas leader raised several questions. Major General Mohamed Rashad, former deputy head of the Egyptian Intelligence Service, explained to Al Arabiya/Al Hadath.net that these forces are an integral part of the intelligence service. They are special forces responsible for securing its operations and personnel, and protecting the agency’s leaders during their work both domestically and internationally. They played a pivotal role in protecting President Mubarak during the assassination attempt in Ethiopia.
This was also evident in the deportation of terrorist Hisham Ashmawy from Libya to Egypt.
Egypt’s imprint remains evident at critical junctures in the region’s history, as evidenced by Trump’s welcome of the invitation to participate in the historic ceremony marking the signing of the Gaza agreement, expressing his happiness at visiting Egypt because it is a country he holds in high esteem.
Wittkopf emphasized that “what has been achieved will pave the way for a new phase in relations between Egypt and the United States,” noting “the need to acknowledge the partnership that has taken place on the ground, which enabled these negotiations to reach a successful conclusion.”
Despite Egypt’s shadow institutions’ insistence on operating quietly, there is growing international appreciation for them and for the venerable Egyptian institutions.
At the same time, the recent period has revealed the difficult and arduous roles played by the Egyptian leadership, which have contributed significantly to consolidating Palestinian rights, and their remarkable ability to exercise self-restraint, dance with the wolves, and play with the big boys.
The truth will emerge
The future remains full of details, and the days are full of surprises. Perhaps the most prominent person who will undermine stability and renege on pledges is Netanyahu. But this time, everyone in Europe and America can no longer tolerate the scenes of genocide in Gaza. Indeed, the Italian Prime Minister revealed that she faces charges of complicity in the crime of genocide against the people of Gaza for her support of Israel. For the first time, the Hebrew state faces stifling isolation. Trump even told Netanyahu, “You will not be able to confront the world.” Here, the question remains open: Will peace remain elusive? Will Netanyahu break his promises? Will Hamas be able to join the peace process? Will Egypt, Qatar, and Türkiye be able to impose stability, with the assistance of Trump and the Gulf states? Or must we prepare for a second round of fighting? I believe the future will answer these questions, and we will not have to wait long. Most likely, after the exchange of Israeli and Palestinian prisoners, the truth will emerge.