The long-awaited final ceasefire agreement between Hamas and the Israeli regime was signed after 15 months of intense conflict. According to a report by Axios News, published on the evening of Wednesday, January 15, citing an American official, the agreement’s provisions closely align with a proposal presented by U.S. President Joe Biden eight months ago.

The ceasefire agreement aligns with a U.S. proposal, long resisted by Netanyahu but pressured by battlefield realities.

The plan, which inevitably took into account the demands of the resistance, was accepted by Hamas, but Israeli officials initially rejected it. The proposal, developed during talks between American and Israeli experts, included minimal Israeli interests, which, under the pressure of battlefield realities, Israeli experts were ultimately compelled to accept. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, driven by his political objectives and those of his cabinet, refused to endorse the proposal.

This hesitation has now led to a situation where Netanyahu is forced to accept the very defeat that American and Israeli security agencies had acknowledged months earlier.

Opposition figures to Netanyahu focused on the demand for the release of hostages. In the weeks leading up to the ceasefire agreement, these figures intensified their protests, which led to major political and street unrest.

Simultaneously, the political and social stability of the Israeli regime was severely disrupted due to the pressure on the issue of prisoners.
This unrest spilled over into the Gaza Strip and Yemen, where tensions escalated even further. In Gaza, the resistance movement undertook several key actions that contributed to deep frustration in Tel Aviv.

Actions included the increasing death toll and injuries among Israeli soldiers in northern Gaza, a renewed barrage of rockets and drone attacks targeting Israeli settlements in the Gaza envelope, the recruitment of 7,000 new fighters into Hamas’s military ranks, and the further strengthening of Hamas’s control over Gaza.

Resistance efforts, from Gaza to Yemen, significantly influenced Israel’s acceptance of ceasefire conditions.

These efforts signaled Hamas’s growing military and political influence in the region. Meanwhile, in Yemen, despite the extensive airstrikes launched by the U.S., UK, and Israeli regimes, the Yemeni military regularly launched Palestinian-2 missiles and drone attacks that directly jeopardized the security of Israeli cities and settlements.

These types of attacks, unprecedented in scope, have been a feature of the recent phase of the conflict. Despite the cessation of Iraqi resistance attacks on the occupied territories and the disruption of the supply of arms from these countries, military intensifications in Gaza and Yemen have brought the Israeli regime closer to an irreversible defeat.

The efforts of these resistance movements have, over time, made the Israeli regime’s position untenable, underscoring the more significant geopolitical dynamics that are reshaping the region.

Politically, the ceasefire process is a positive development for Iran. Iran remains a pivotal supporter and leader of the resistance axis in the region and globally.

Today, Iran stands at the forefront of the struggle against imperialism, the West, and Zionist domination, and this is a source of pride for the country. The ceasefire with Hamas does not alter Iran’s regional calculations, as Iran’s support for Gaza has never been aimed at controlling it.

If Hezbollah has exerted pressure on Israel, it was to halt the atrocities in Gaza and enforce a ceasefire so that the killing of innocent people would stop, just as Yemen has called for similar measures.

The ceasefire aligns with what both the resistance and Iran have sought. From a political standpoint, it is also beneficial for Iran, as Israel has yielded to the resistance’s demands. Hamas, as the final link in the resistance chain, has proven its effectiveness in this regard.

After each ceasefire agreement, analysts are often tasked with determining who the true winners and losers are. The flexibility shown by Hamas in this case stems from Israel’s recognition of its need to accept the previous conditions set by the resistance.

Hamas’s strengthened military and political position reshapes regional dynamics despite immense casualties and destruction in Gaza.

Although there remains the possibility of the ceasefire failing, the Palestinian prisoners, who are the primary concern for Hamas, must be released. In exchange, 35 or 40 individual hostages will be returned to Israel. However, this process will not significantly alter the regional balance of power.

Israel has stated that it will withdraw from specific areas, but there is the possibility of returning. Despite this, the blows Hamas has dealt to Israel in recent months have been severe. These blows have not only damaged Israel’s international reputation but have also resulted in the regime’s condemnation at the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Netanyahu and his team are widely regarded as criminals and should be prosecuted, with such proceedings already occurring in absentia. If Israel violates the ceasefire, it will not alter the regional dynamics, as Hamas is now stronger than it was five months ago, and the people continue to support it despite the hardships and casualties. Despite the immense losses in Gaza, including more than 50,000 deaths and widespread destruction, Israel’s image and legitimacy have been severely compromised.

Hamas understands that the future backbone of the resistance will continue to be Iran. Regional regimes, alongside Netanyahu, have played a role in suppressing the people, causing destruction and killing. This fact cannot be denied. Over the course of the past five months, countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Jordan have assisted Israel—whether through food and logistical support or fuel shipments via roads that could have been cut off. These countries could have stood against Israel as Yemen did, but they chose not to.

The ceasefire agreement marks a critical juncture in the ongoing conflict between Hamas and the Israeli regime. What started as a proposal from the U.S. president—intended to meet the needs of both the resistance and Israeli security interests—has evolved into a forced acceptance of terms that the Israeli government had once rejected.

The ceasefire reflects the shifting power balance, with Iran playing a pivotal role in supporting the resistance.

The military and political pressures exerted by the resistance in Gaza, Yemen, and even within Israel itself have pushed Netanyahu to a point where he has been compelled to accept a ceasefire agreement he had previously resisted. This development reflects not only the shifting power dynamics in the region but also highlights the significant consequences of protracted military conflict, where diplomatic efforts and battlefield realities often collide, leading to a resolution that may not fully satisfy all parties involved but serves to end a devastating cycle of violence.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.