G7 Summit Must Seize the Opportunity to Turn Fragile Ceasefires into Lasting Peace

As G7 leaders gather in Evian this week, they face a Middle East transformed by war. Fragile ceasefires in Gaza, Lebanon, and between Israel, the United States, and Iran have reduced casualty numbers, but the likelihood of renewed warfare is high and underlying drivers of conflict remain unresolved. The challenge before the G7 is clear: how to convert temporary military de-escalation into a durable framework for regional stability.

One answer already exists. The India–Middle East–Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), launched at the 2023 G20 Summit, was conceived as a connectivity initiative linking India, the Gulf, the Levant, and Europe through integrated transport, energy, and digital infrastructure. Yet the strategic importance of IMEC has evolved dramatically since its announcement. It should now be viewed not only as an economic corridor but as a geopolitical stabilization strategy.

The G7 should therefore endorse and advance what has become known as the IMEC Peace Triangle—a framework that links economic connectivity to peacebuilding by placing Israel, Palestine, and Jordan at the centre of a broader regional architecture extending from Egypt to Lebanon and Syria.

The rationale has become increasingly compelling. Recent conflicts have exposed the vulnerability of global trade to disruptions at key maritime chokepoints, particularly the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. The possibility that future crises could again threaten these routes has accelerated Gulf interest in overland alternatives connecting Arabian Gulf markets to the Eastern Mediterranean and Europe.

G7 and Gulf partners have a shared interest in creating more resilient trade routes. But railways, ports, electricity grids, and data corridors cannot succeed where conflict remains the dominant political reality. Investors will not commit billions of dollars to infrastructure projects that could be disrupted by war.

This is where the IMEC Peace Triangle offers something new.

The concept is built around four mutually reinforcing objectives: economic integration, geopolitical stabilization, climate resilience, and regional security cooperation. Rather than treating peace and development as separate tracks, it seeks to make them mutually reinforcing.

The model draws inspiration from the experience of Europe. After World War II, European and US leaders understood that peace would not be secured through diplomacy alone. The European Coal and Steel Community created economic interdependence that made conflict increasingly irrational. Today’s Europe is the product of that strategic vision.

The Middle East requires a similar approach.

The economic incentives are significant. An expanded IMEC network could support the reconstruction of Gaza, the rebuilding of Beirut, and the reintegration of Syria. Haifa port in Israel could become a major gateway linking Asia and Europe. Gaza would be reconnected to regional trade networks. Beirut could reclaim its historic role as a commercial hub. Jordan could become the indispensable connector between the Arabian Peninsula and the Eastern Mediterranean.

These opportunities weaken the interests of Iranian proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and the broader region by creating powerful incentives for cooperation, offering a credible alternative to the politics of perpetual conflict.

The G7 summit offers an opportunity to provide that vision.

Several practical steps should be considered.

First, G7 leaders should formally recognize IMEC as both an economic and peacebuilding initiative, not simply a trade corridor.

Second, they should support integrating IMEC into reconstruction planning for Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, ensuring that rebuilding efforts are connected to regional economic networks rather than isolated national projects.

Third, they should encourage immediate implementation of “low-hanging fruit” projects already under discussion, including regional water-energy partnerships and electricity interconnection initiatives that can demonstrate the benefits of cooperation.

Fourth, they should mobilize international financial institutions and private-sector investors to support feasibility studies and early-stage project development.

Finally, the G7 should encourage closer alignment between IMEC and broader diplomatic initiatives supporting a two-state solution and regional normalization. Economic connectivity cannot replace political agreements, but it can help create the conditions in which political compromise becomes more achievable.

The lesson from Europe is straightforward: peace becomes more sustainable when people and nations have something tangible to lose from conflict and something meaningful to gain from cooperation.

The Middle East’s recent wars have demonstrated the costs of fragmentation. IMEC offers a framework for a different future—one built around connectivity, investment, energy cooperation, and shared prosperity.

The ceasefires now in place are temporary. If the G7 acts strategically, they could become the foundation for something more enduring: a regional architecture in which economic integration helps transform fragile stability into lasting peace.

Gidon Bromberg is the co-founder and 30+ years Israeli Director of EcoPeace Middle East, a unique organization of Israelis, Palestinians and Jordanians, nominated in 2024 and 2025 for the Nobel Peace Prize. See www.ecopeaceme.org   A detailed analysis expanding on the ideas presented here will appear in an IMEC compendium to be published later this year by the Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP) India and the German Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.