Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations hosted an online panel discussion via Zoom on Wednesday, 8/7/2026, entitled “The Repercussions of the Israeli-US War against Iran on the Palestine Issue,” bringing together a select group of experts and specialists.
The discussion was moderated by Al-Zaytouna’s General-Manager Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh, who opened the session by emphasizing that the Israeli–US war against Iran has far-reaching regional and international implications. He noted that the discussion focused on its implications for the Palestine issue by examining its impact on Iranian, Israeli and US policies, the future of the Palestinian resistance, and the broader Arab regional context. Drawing on the expertise of leading researchers and specialists, the panel adopted a forward-looking analytical approach to assessing the war’s strategic implications.
Speaking on the war’s implications for Iranian policy toward the Palestine issue, Dr. Hossam Matar, a specialist in international relations and strategic studies, argued that the war’s outcome remains uncertain, making any definitive assessment premature. He maintained that Iran’s future policy will be shaped by three key factors: Its assessment of the war’s outcome, developments in the Palestine issue, and changes in the regional environment.
According to Matar, the war has reinforced Iran’s perception of Israel as a direct threat to its national security while strengthening domestic support for the Palestine issue and the Axis of Resistance. At the same time, it has underscored the high costs of direct military confrontation, prompting Tehran to reassess its strategic priorities.
He further argued that evolving regional dynamics could open the door to broader understandings with regional actors that would advance the Palestine issue. However, the siege on GS and the realities on the ground have constrained Iran’s ability to sustain previous forms of support.
Matar concluded that Iran is likely to place greater emphasis on political, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance while seeking to secure a role in any future arrangements concerning the Palestine issue, bolster Palestinian resilience, and continue exerting pressure on Israel. At the same time, Tehran is expected to develop new mechanisms for supporting the Palestinian resistance that are better suited to the strategic realities emerging from the war.
Discussing the war’s implications for Israeli policy toward the Palestine issue, Dr. Nihad Al-Sheikh Khalil, a specialist in Israeli affairs, argued that the Israeli government views the existence of the Palestinian people as a strategic challenge and seeks to advance annexation, settlement expansion, and the displacement of the Gaza Strip (GS) residents. He identified four key drivers behind Israel’s continuation of the war: Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival, domestic political divisions, right-wing ideology, and the broader goal of consolidating Israeli regional dominance.
He noted that Israeli assessments largely view the war against Iran as a strategic success that has strengthened deterrence, weakened the Axis of Resistance, and reinforced cooperation with the US, while Iran remains Israel’s primary regional threat.
Nevertheless, Al-Sheikh Khalil emphasized that Israel’s capacity to sustain escalation depends heavily on US support, as well as on political and diplomatic pressures and international public opinion. He outlined two possible scenarios: continued military operations or a transition toward conditional political arrangements aimed at achieving Israeli objectives incrementally. He concluded that stronger official Arab and Islamic engagement, coupled with international public pressure, is essential to restraining further Israeli escalation.
Addressing the war’s implications for Lebanon’s approach to the Palestine issue, Dr. Chafic Choucair, a researcher at the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies specializing in Islamic movements, argued that Lebanon’s relationship with the Palestine issue is defined by mutual influence. He noted that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon represent a distinct case due to their geographic proximity to Palestine and their long history of national struggle. Choucair emphasized that Lebanon’s official position is grounded in support for Palestinian national rights, rejection of both naturalization and displacement, and affirmation of the right of return, an approach that reflects both a political commitment and a Lebanese national interest.
He further argued that Lebanon is undergoing a process of internal and regional repositioning following recent developments, with direct implications for Palestinian affairs in the country, particularly after the involvement of Palestinian factions in clashes along the southern border during the recent war. At the same time, he noted that some Lebanese voices have increasingly associated the Palestine issue with the costs Lebanon has borne, potentially affecting the future status of Palestinians, especially amid debates over the weapons of refugee camps and Palestinian rights.
Choucair warned that these developments could generate pressures leading to greater marginalization of Palestinians or facilitating gradual displacement. He concluded that the future of Palestinian affairs in Lebanon will remain closely linked to evolving domestic Lebanese dynamics and broader regional developments.
Prof. Dr. Walid ‘Abd al-Hay, Professor of Political Science and specialist in futures studies and international relations, examined the war’s implications for US policy toward the Palestine issue. He argued that the Iranian–Israeli war and its regional repercussions will likely influence Washington’s approach, noting that US–Iranian relations since 1979 have been defined by persistent hostility, with the Palestine issue representing a central component of this rivalry. ‘Abd al-Hay emphasized that the personality and political orientation of US President Donald Trump are central to understanding the direction of US policy. He argued that Trump’s approach has reflected a clear strategic alignment with Israel, as demonstrated by a series of measures, including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, relocating the US embassy there, withdrawing from the nuclear agreement with Iran, supporting settlement expansion, advancing the “Deal of the Century,” and ultimately backing the war on GS.
He further argued that Trump approaches Arab states primarily through the prism of economic and security interests, placing greater emphasis on relations with ruling regimes than on issues of democracy and human rights. Against this backdrop, he suggested that the war with Iran could be used to reshape regional alliances and weaken Iran’s connection to the Palestine issue. Moreover, Washington may seek to pursue broader international bargains with major powers at the expense of Palestinian rights.
‘Abd al-Hay concluded that Israel’s strategic standing is likely to be further reinforced within the US policy framework, alongside continued normalization efforts, the marginalization of international institutions, and the postponement of key issues related to Jerusalem, refugees and Palestinian sovereignty.
In his presentation on the war’s implications for the Palestinian resistance, ‘Atef al-Joulani, Editor-in-Chief of Assabeel newspaper and an expert on political and strategic affairs, argued that the confrontations on the Iranian and Lebanese fronts were part of the broader consequences of the 7 October War and Operation al-Aqsa Flood. He noted that the Palestinian resistance’s resilience over the past two years has significantly influenced the calculations of regional and international actors. Furthermore, he explained that Israel’s engagement in confrontations with Lebanon and Iran reduced the pressure on the GS, giving the resistance greater space to reorganize its capabilities and strengthen its position on the ground.
Al-Joulani also maintained that the latest confrontation reinforced the deterrence equation vis-à-vis Israel and revived the concept of “Unity of the Arenas” by demonstrating the involvement of multiple arenas in the conflict. He added that the failure of attempts to disarm the resistance in Lebanon and Iran would likely affect efforts to pressure the Palestinian resistance. In this context, he noted that Hizbullah’s ability to recover from the strikes it endured could offer lessons for the Palestinian resistance.
In conclusion, Al-Joulani emphasized that the resistance’s priorities in the coming period would be to sustain its steadfastness, preserve its capabilities, enhance regional coordination, and reassess the future of the “Unity of the Arenas” project. He argued that the outcome of the latest confrontation could strengthen the broader appeal of resistance and reinforce its political legitimacy in the region.
In his presentation on the war’s implications for Arab policies toward the Palestine issue, Firas Abu Hilal, a Middle East affairs specialist and Editor-in-Chief of Arabi21, argued that the war against Iran exposed the limits of US capacity to exert unchallenged influence over the region. At the same time, he noted that it underscored the strategic importance of the Gulf states and Egypt in regional security, energy markets, and broader international interests. Consequently, he suggested that these developments could provide Arab states with greater leverage to press Washington on the Palestinian file rather than merely acquiescing to external pressure.
Abu Hilal further maintained that the war demonstrated the US’s ability to restrain Israel when it chooses to do so. In his view, this indicates that Arab states can leverage their economic and strategic assets to encourage Washington to pursue more balanced policies toward Palestine. He also argued that the war has revived fundamental questions about allies and adversaries in the region, revealing that Israel’s conduct has been a principal driver of the conflict’s expansion and a growing threat to Gulf security.
Finally, Abu Hilal contended that the experience has shown that normalization does not necessarily enhance security; on the contrary, it may increase regional vulnerabilities. He therefore called for slowing the pace of normalization while expanding engagement with the full spectrum of Palestinian political forces, thereby enabling Arab states to build more effective sources of leverage in addressing the region’s evolving challenges.
The presentations were followed by insightful contributions from experts and specialists, as well as responses from the speakers addressing participants’ questions and observations during the concluding session.
Leave A Comment