Voices from the Arab press: Will Tehran celebrate while Netanyahu waits in the wings?

Today’s preliminary “Vance-Ghalibaf” agreement evokes memories of that earlier moment. Trump staged its signing at Versailles, hoping to frame it as a historic achievement, though Versailles itself is also remembered as the flawed peace that paved the way for a larger war. In the confusion surrounding the new framework, the most important question is not whether Iran regains frozen assets, receives economic assistance, or benefits from the reopening of Hormuz, but whether the agreement can survive.

The geopolitical consequences are potentially enormous. By lifting sanctions and restoring Iran’s economic position, Washington risks rehabilitating Tehran as a major regional power after years of efforts to weaken it. The theory embraced by Vice President JD Vance – that economic integration will moderate Iran’s behavior – sounds remarkably similar to Obama’s belief that the 2015 agreement would strengthen moderates inside the regime.

Israel, meanwhile, is watching with anger and alarm. Having spent years working to weaken Iran, it is unlikely to accept Tehran’s return as a strengthened regional power. Netanyahu will pressure Trump to tighten the terms of any final agreement, and skepticism will emerge not only from Israel and parts of the Gulf but also from hawks inside Trump’s own administration.

The positive aspect of the framework is that it offers both sides an exit from a costly confrontation and creates space for further negotiations. Yet many of the most difficult issues remain unresolved. If sanctions are lifted and Iran regains access to oil revenues and reconstruction funds, the country could eventually receive hundreds of billions of dollars. That prospect raises a troubling possibility: that the agreement may create a stronger and more confident Iran than the one it was meant to restrain.

If subsequent negotiations fail to alter Tehran’s behavior, Netanyahu may once again find himself leading the effort to confront Iran militarily.

Israel, unhappy with the arrangement but largely silent in public, appears determined to continue military operations in pursuit of its own objectives. Iran, meanwhile, has no intention of allowing Lebanon’s trajectory to become detached from that of the Islamic Republic. Tehran opened the southern Lebanese front to pressure Washington and distract Israel, and it will not tolerate developments that weaken its grip over what it still considers a strategic asset.

Lebanon’s fate has repeatedly been negotiated by larger powers, whether through Syria after the Taif Agreement or through other regional arrangements. Today, Ira n seeks once again to retain control of the Lebanese file regardless of the cost to Lebanon itself.

The regime presents its survival after the war with the US and Israel as a victory and claims credit for forcing concessions from its adversaries. In that narrative, Hezbollah’s role is central. Thousands of Hezbollah fighters paid a heavy price during the conflict, making it only natural, from Tehran’s perspective, to view Lebanon through the prism of the party rather than through its state institutions. The Lebanese presidency, government, and official institutions become secondary considerations.

Washington may believe it is negotiating with Iran over broader regional questions, but Tehran continues to see Lebanon as one of its most valuable bargaining chips, both before the memorandum of understanding and after it.

Europe’s immigration debate reveals a striking contradiction. On the one hand, governments and voters increasingly support restrictions designed to reduce migration. On the other hand, demographic realities suggest that many European economies desperately need more immigrants, not fewer. Germany offers the clearest example. A recent report by the German Economic Institute warns that the country could face a labor shortage exceeding 4.3 million workers by 2036, driven largely by an aging population and declining numbers of working-age citizens.

At the same time, immigration has slowed as successive governments move away from the more welcoming policies associated with Angela Merkel. Many assumed Merkel’s support for immigration was motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns, but the latest figures suggest she also understood its economic necessity.

The debate mirrors similar arguments across Europe, where anti-immigration parties continue to gain strength despite the demographic challenges facing their countries. There is a revealing thread connecting Germany’s labor shortage and Switzerland’s population concerns: both revolve around migration. Germans worry about too little immigration; many Swiss worry about too much.

The broader European conversation remains trapped between economic reality and political anxiety. Moderate observers hoped that recent setbacks for some right-wing leaders would slow the momentum of anti-immigration movements, but those hopes have yet to materialize. Europe increasingly appears to be moving against its own long-term interests.

Years ago, Egypt and Sudan experimented with an agreement granting mutual freedoms of movement, residence, work, and property ownership. Circumstances prevented it from flourishing, but the principle remains instructive. Europe today may need something closer to openness than exclusion. Building higher walls may appear to solve immediate political problems, but demographic trends suggest such policies ultimately run against the nature of things.

The global economy is entering a new phase marked by shifting balances of power and slower growth. United Nations forecasts project global growth of 2.7% in 2026, slightly below the previous year and well below pre-pandemic averages. Trade growth is also expected to slow as major economic powers remain locked in disputes and global supply chains continue to face pressure from higher transportation costs and logistical disruptions.

Although inflation is declining, that does not mean prices are falling; it simply means they are rising more slowly. Families around the world still face significant pressure from housing, energy, food, and service costs. Against this backdrop, the importance of economic diversification, innovation, and investment in productive sectors becomes even clearer.

The Gulf states possess many of the ingredients necessary for a similar transformation: financial resources, strategic geographic locations, modern infrastructure, and ambitious development visions. Kuwait, in particular, benefits from one of the world’s oldest sovereign wealth funds and growing efforts to expand logistics, financial technology, digital services, and clean energy sectors.

The global economy is increasingly defined not by natural resources alone but by knowledge, innovation, and technological capability. Artificial intelligence, digital technologies, and the transition toward green energy are expected to become major engines of future growth. This makes investment in education, workforce skills, entrepreneurship, and infrastructure more important than ever.

While many countries struggle with debt burdens, trade volatility, and rapid technological disruption, Gulf economies possess the financial flexibility to turn uncertainty into opportunity. Ultimately, future success will depend less on today’s growth rates than on the ability to prepare for tomorrow. With continued reforms, stronger human capital, and deeper international partnerships, the region has the potential not only to achieve economic growth but also to build a more sustainable and prosperous model for future generations.