Riyadh | BETH
07 Dhu al-Qi'dah 1447H | 24 April 2026

When the ending is written outside the battlefield

Prepared and Analyzed by | Strategic Media Department – BETH

Introduction

Wars begin with a decision…
but they do not end with the last shot.

They are often settled at a table managed under battlefield pressure,
where the parties do not seek a complete victory…
but the best possible formula for the end.

Historical Evidence

Versailles: An End that Led to Another Conflict (1919)

World War I ended with harsh conditions imposed on Germany,
but it did not satisfy all the victors;
Italy emerged with a “mutilated victory,”
and Japan with limited gains and a sense of lack of recognition.

The treaty was signed in the “Hall of Mirrors” at the Palace of Versailles on June 28, 1919,
after six months of negotiations following the November 11, 1918 armistice,
turning from a settlement into a political imposition.

Among its key provisions:
holding Germany responsible for the war,
imposing massive financial reparations,
restricting its military capabilities and disarming large parts of it,
and stripping it of territories and overseas colonies in favor of European states.

Significance:
An unbalanced agreement…
does not end conflict, but postpones it in a more severe form.

World War II: Decisive Victory Ends Ideology (1945)

It ended with the victory of the Allies,
and the fall of the Nazi regime in Germany and the Fascist regime in Italy,
bringing to a close an era built on totalitarian ideology and domination.

Significance:
Some conflicts are not resolved through negotiation…
but through a victory that ends the idea that fueled the war.

When settlements fail to contain conflict…
a decisive moment reshapes the rules.

The Cold War: Pressure Decides (Without Direct Confrontation)

The conflict ended without a full-scale war,
but through long-term exhaustion.

Outcome and Significance:
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991,
after years of economic, military, and technological pressure,
without direct military confrontation with the United States.
Pressure can decide outcomes… without firing a shot.

Vietnam: Withdrawal Does Not Mean Resolution (1973)

The Paris Agreement ended the U.S. presence,
but political resolution was delayed until the fall of Saigon.

Significance:
Military power does not guarantee a stable outcome.

October War: Victory Opens the Door to Politics (1973–1978)

A victory was achieved that restored the land,
but it did not fully end the conflict.

This balance on the battlefield
opened a negotiating path,
which ended with an agreement that reshaped the regional landscape.

Significance:
When victory occurs without complete resolution…
politics begins to write the ending.

Afghanistan: Negotiation Under Exhaustion (2020)

An agreement ended a long military presence,
but reality quickly reshaped itself.

Significance:
Negotiation under pressure, and the absence of proper planning…
do not create stable balance.

Iraq: Regime Removal… and the Aftermath Vacuum (2003)

The regime was removed through rapid military action…
but what followed was the dismantling of state institutions,
and a security and political vacuum that allowed the intervention of forces, the formation of militias,
and the expansion of conflict within Iraq and the region.

Significance:
Removing a regime does not mean a stable outcome…
and managing the post-decisive phase determines the shape of the end.

The American Pattern: Battlefield Resolution… and Post-Conflict Disorder?

The United States has engaged in multiple wars over decades,
from Vietnam to Afghanistan and Iraq,
extending to less decisive interventions in other regions.

In several of these cases,
military objectives or immediate goals were achieved,
but post-conflict management did not always lead to sustainable stability,
leaving vacuums that reshaped conflicts in different forms.

The recurring question:
Is this tied to the nature of each war and its specific conditions…
or to a pattern that persists across administrations and changing presidents?

From Truman to Johnson and Nixon,
and from Bush to Obama and Biden,
the tools may differ…
but outcomes show similarities in certain cases.

With the return of Trump,
the same question emerges in a new form:

Will the outcome change…
or only the method?

Significance

The issue is not only about power…
but about the ability of that power to convert victory into stability.

Trust is not built on victory alone…
but on what follows.

Military resolution changes reality…
but what comes after tests credibility.

Does History Repeat Today?

History does not repeat itself exactly…
but it is a school from which the wise learn.

It presents evolving patterns with changing times,
yet rooted in the same foundations of thought.

A stable victor…
is the one who learns from experience,
while mistakes do not evolve…
they return in harsher forms if not understood.

BETH Analysis

The current scene is not managed by a single actor…
but by overlapping layers of pressure:

A global power,
and regional powers that see their stability as a red line.

In such moments,
endings are not the result of cold negotiation alone,
but the outcome of interaction between the battlefield… political will… and regional pressure.

History offers two paths to endings:

Settlements that preserve systems with modified behavior,
or endings imposed when wills converge on deeper change.

When international and regional pressure intersect…
the conditions of the end change.

Conclusion

Wars do not end when fighting stops,
but when the shape of the ending is imposed.

The battlefield determines direction…
but the table writes the ending.

BETH (بث B) – All rights reserved