We are witnessing a shift in both the Iranian and Israeli doctrines, yet we don’t know where the compass needle will settle in either case. The future of the Middle East hinges on it.

The question is whether Iran is genuinely ready to soften its doctrine because its strategic needs necessitate a radical reassessment, or whether it is merely manoeuvring temporarily to catch its breath before continuing to support its proxies across the Arab world. Similarly, does Israel view the current moment as opportune for making a qualitative leap to expand its territory?

We are no longer in a time when global superpowers could impose their decisions on regional powers. In fact, it might be the opposite, whether through defiance or evasion. No heavyweight countries can remain the sole superpower – including the US. There is no longer a balance of power among the major powers to pressure their regional proxies or partners, with the other applying a counterweight.

As for the UN, it is no longer an effective mechanism for conflict resolution, or for enforcing settlements. The Security Council has been undermined, as has been the Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, with Israel declaring him persona non grata.

Yet the key to restoring relevance, exerting influence, and acting rationally now lies in Lebanon, specifically through the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1701. It offers a roadmap for creative thinking and action for all stakeholders, but its implementation requires political courage from all parties without exception.

For starters, the UN Secretariat should stop placing Lebanon in the same category as Gaza. It’s time to separate the two, at least because Lebanon is a sovereign state, whereas Gaza is not a member state of the UN. Indeed, there is no need to uphold what Hezbollah’s late secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, called the “Lebanese front to support Gaza”, which eventually dragged Lebanon into a war with Israel.

The global body has two roles to play in Lebanon. One is to provide protection to those still remaining in southern Lebanon by strengthening the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil). The other is to co-ordinate international support to rehabilitate the one million people displaced across the country.

The implementation of Resolution 1701 has become critically important today, because Hezbollah can no longer impose itself by force in the zone between the Lebanon-Israel border and the Litani River, where the Lebanese state was supposed to exert exclusive authority under this resolution. Hezbollah usurped the state’s sovereignty by imposing itself in place of the army, thereby violating 1701. Israel has also violated the resolution by repeatedly breaching Lebanese air space and, more recently, through incursions into southern Lebanon.

Today, following two weeks of Israeli operations against its leadership and military infrastructure, Hezbollah is prepared to withdraw to the north of the Litani River, as confirmed by both interim Prime Minister Najib Mikati and Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. The important thing, then, is to ensure that the Lebanese army is empowered with all the resources it needs to replace Hezbollah in the south, supported by an enhanced Unifil.

This will prevent Israel from reoccupying the buffer zone due to the security vacuum or from taking it upon itself to impose a buffer zone, as it trusts no one but itself and is committed to ensuring the safe return of settlers to northern Israel.

The responsibility falls on Lebanon’s leaders to hold a session to elect a president without conditions or excuses. It is essential for Mr Berri, Mr Mikati and others to show the courage to save their country. Indeed, implementing Resolution 1701 would mean enforcing another UN Security Council resolution – 1559 – which Mr Berri opposes because it calls for the disarmament of Hezbollah and the Palestinian factions based in Lebanon.

It is this sovereignty that has been infringed upon by both Israel and Iran for decades. Cases in point include Israel’s war against Hezbollah and Iran’s response when its ambassador to the UN recently called for a Security Council session after Nasrallah’s killing.

But Iran remains essential to all agreements, particularly from the perspective of the US administration under President Joe Biden, whose officials dealing with Lebanon believe that Hezbollah’s willingness to withdraw from the south is due to a directive from Tehran.

There is talk these days that the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah is going through a phase of distrust, with questions asked as to whether Tehran has thrown Hezbollah under the Israeli bus as part of a deal being prepared behind the scenes with the Biden administration, in indirect co-ordination with Israel.

After all, there are those who believe that Israel could not have achieved its recent successes against Hezbollah without either co-operating with Iran or breaching its defences. But why co-operation, one might ask? This is because Iran’s national interests take precedence – such as preserving its nuclear weapons programme in exchange for ending US-led sanctions against it – even if it means temporarily sacrificing its most valuable proxies.

The Biden administration appears keen to clinch a deal with Iran, and for this it acted decisively when Israel was ready to retaliate after Iran fired missiles at it last week. Israel’s retaliation plan reportedly includes air strikes on Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities, but the Biden administration has told Israel that America does not want to be dragged into a war with Iran and that Israel should not assume that it has US military cover for such strikes.

Israel may still choose to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. But this is a costly and dangerous gamble, as it would be fighting on three fronts while exposing its own citizenry to the consequences of further Iranian retaliation.

The choice for the region’s two adversaries could, therefore, not be clearer.