Regional calm may force Gaza's fragile truce to face renewed crisis.

Regional tensions are shifting as fragile ceasefires hold between the United States and Iran, and between Israel and Lebanon. This de-escalation elsewhere may soon force the spotlight back onto Gaza. There, a dangerous deadlock over Hamas weapons and future governance threatens to derail the current truce.

Gaza City residents now face a critical question. Will the quiet on other fronts compel Israel to scale back its military assaults in the enclave? Or will this calm allow Tel Aviv to intensify its operations?

Since April 8, the US and Iran have maintained a tense but active ceasefire. This stability follows weeks of US-Israeli bombing of Iranian targets and Tehran's retaliatory strikes on Israel and US assets across the Middle East. Despite this, Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a US blockade on Iranian ports cast a long shadow over the region. Mediator Pakistan continues efforts to bring these rivals back to the negotiating table.

President Donald Trump announced last week that Israel and Lebanon agreed to extend their ceasefire by three weeks. This extension follows high-level talks at the White House aimed at securing a long-term deal. The agreement includes the disarmament of Hezbollah, a key Palestinian ally backed by Iran.

However, the Israel-Lebanon talks effectively excluded Hezbollah. Near-daily violations of the truce continue across southern Lebanon. Israeli forces have established a "Yellow Line" demarcating the territory they occupy, mirroring the situation in Gaza. Since March 2, when the latest escalation began, more than 2,500 people have been killed in Lebanon. Over a million civilians have been displaced.

Amid this regional calm, the Israeli government has signaled readiness to continue military operations in Gaza. This stance raises deep fears among Palestinians that an all-out genocidal war could return. Some analysts suggest Israel might resume assaults now that guns are quieter on other fronts. Others view a renewed war on Gaza as a pressure tactic to influence ongoing negotiations with Iran and Lebanon.

Gazans see two main scenarios unfolding. First, the current calm could lead Israel to apply maximum military pressure on Gaza. Second, regional and global factors might prevent Israel from resuming the intense military operations seen before the October ceasefire.

Ultimately, the path Israel chooses may depend on Hamas's stance. Western demands require Hamas to disarm as a condition for implementing the second phase of the US-backed ceasefire. This requirement remains a central point of contention for the future of the region.

A new phase of regional dynamics has emerged, centering on the establishment of a national committee to govern Gaza, potential international troop deployments, and high-stakes negotiations regarding the enclave's weapons arsenal.

Wissam Afifa, a researcher and journalist focused on political and strategic analysis, told Al Jazeera that the relative quiet on the Iranian and Lebanese fronts significantly elevates Gaza's priority in Israeli strategic calculations. With reduced attrition across multiple fronts, Israel can now redirect its military and political focus toward unresolved issues, specifically the future governance of Gaza and the fate of Hamas's armaments.

However, Afifa cautioned that this shift does not necessarily signal an immediate escalation to full-scale war. Instead, it may result in "intensified low-intensity political and security pressures," particularly if Israel perceives this approach as a way to secure strategic gains at a cost lower than open conflict. He noted that his assessment aligns with Israel's ongoing expansion of control zones within Gaza and its persistent demands for Hamas's disarmament, which the United States identifies as a "central obstacle in the US plan."

Afifa argued that the absence of active military fronts elsewhere does not reduce Gaza's vulnerability; rather, it exposes the enclave to greater pressure. Reduced tensions in other regions free Israeli decision-makers to concentrate their efforts on the strip. Conversely, a "balancing factor" exists: the international community, led by the United States, may seek to prevent a new conflagration in Gaza following pauses in fighting in Lebanon and Iran. Afifa observed that Washington's reaction in Lebanon suggests a preference for managing escalation rather than allowing it to spiral, a strategy driven by fears of a broader regional war and its associated costs. He expects the Trump administration to apply similar logic to the situation in Gaza.

"It is not necessarily about imposing a fair or final solution but about preventing a major explosion, buying time and pushing parties towards interim arrangements," Afifa stated. Yet, he highlighted a complication: Gaza presents a distinct case because Washington ties political and security progress directly to the issues of Hamas's weapons and governance arrangements, making the prospect of American pressure on Israel more intricate.

Political analyst Ahed Farwana, an expert on Israeli affairs, added that the cessation of wars in Lebanon and Iran has reshuffled priorities within Israel. Consequently, despite ongoing military operations, Gaza has become "secondary" in the global discourse.

Regarding the core dispute, Afifa described Hamas's linkage of disarmament to a complete Israeli withdrawal and the creation of a Palestinian state as a "fundamentally strategic move, not merely a negotiating detail." By tying weapons to long-term guarantees rather than a mere technical arrangement, Hamas aims to secure its future. However, if hostilities in Lebanon and Iran subside, pressure on Hamas will intensify, potentially making disarmament the central issue for both Israel and the United States. In response, Hamas may attempt to pivot the conversation from immediate disarmament to a comprehensive Israeli withdrawal, reconstruction efforts, and governance questions to avoid framing the weapons issue as an isolated political surrender.

Israel maintains that its withdrawal is contingent upon Hamas's disarmament, while the group insists that discussions regarding its weapons must follow a full Israeli withdrawal, the reopening of border crossings, and the reconstruction of Gaza—conditions outlined in the first phase of the "ceasefire."

According to Afifa, the most probable outcome is a "prolonged negotiating stalemate," characterized by attempts to establish a gradual track rather than pursuing a quick breakthrough.

Partial humanitarian arrangements may materialize, yet the core deadlock remains postponed until pressure balances shift or a new guarantee framework emerges. Farwana concurred, arguing that tethering disarmament to other conditions merely extends the crisis, as Israel currently controls over 60 percent of Gaza, executes assassinations and bombardments, and enforces severe restrictions on aid and the movement of people.

The impasse coincides with an election year in Israel, prompting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to sidestep second-phase obligations while extending the first phase of the so-called ceasefire as long as possible. Hazem Qassem, a spokesman for Hamas, told Al Jazeera that Israel must fulfill the terms of the ceasefire and implement first-phase commitments before any progress occurs. Qassem noted that the blockade and killings persist, with more than 700 deaths recorded since the start of the truce.

Qassem stated that Hamas seeks to build a foundation of trust through the full implementation of first-phase conditions before advancing to the second. He asserted that Hamas is capable of adopting logical and reasonable approaches within a national consensus to prevent a return to war, appealing to mediating nations to ensure the first phase is executed. He criticized linking implementation to disarmament, labeling it a clear bias toward the Israeli perspective.

According to Qassem, Israeli attacks on Gaza have not ceased, averaging five killings daily since the ceasefire began. He added that Israel permits less than a third of the agreed aid to enter Gaza, continuing to block mobile homes, tents, and medical supplies. He described the situation as a massacre in every sense, noting that rodents swarm displacement camps and diseases spread.

Qassem warned that Israel has not halted its military policies but distributed them across multiple fronts, cautioning that calm elsewhere could lead to intensified operations in Gaza as part of aggressive and expansionist Israeli policies led by a far-right government. He stated that threats extend beyond Gaza to the occupied West Bank, where settlers engage in violence and expand illegal settlements, and to Lebanon and Syria, posing a risk to broader Arab security.

Several rounds of talks between a Hamas delegation and United Nations envoy Nikolay Mladenov occurred in Cairo in March and this month. Reports indicated the discussions focused on stabilizing the ceasefire, ensuring implementation of its first phase, and addressing humanitarian issues including aid and border crossings. The talks also addressed a transition to the second phase.

While described as positive at times, the talks have not yielded a breakthrough but have established a negotiation track aimed at sustaining calm while postponing sensitive issues such as disarming Hamas. Afifa noted that recent Israeli statements reflect a mix of pressure to negotiate while keeping war as an option for deterrence and leverage. While a war could erupt if talks fail or the deadlock over Hamas's weapons is not resolved, its human and military costs, the absence of a clear political endgame, and internal differences in Israel and US pressure could act as constraints. Farwana said he believes a return to full-scale war is unlikely but fears political pressures on Netanyahu, especially from the far right, could push him toward escalation.

For him, the Israeli military is currently drained by a succession of conflicts, while the army faces critical deficits in personnel. Compounding these issues are ongoing political debates regarding the extension of mandatory reserve service, all of which could serve as significant deterrents to further conflict.

"All these factors make the military establishment reluctant to return to full-scale war, making limited escalation a more likely scenario," he told Al Jazeera.

Farwana emphasized that Gaza now requires intensified engagement from Arab and Muslim nations to secure lasting peace and accelerate the implementation of the second phase of the ceasefire agreement.

"US President Donald Trump is the only party capable of exerting real pressure on Netanyahu, as seen in Lebanon, but this depends on parallel Arab and Islamic pressure," he said.