The Netziv interprets as a double punishment ‘v’hashimosi es mikdisehichem’, which refers to the destruction of the Bais haMikdash, ‘v’lo ariach b’reiach nichocheichem’, which refers to Hashem’s refusal to accept our korbanos. Even though theoretically korbanos could be offered on the mizbeyach without the Bais haMikdash standing, the tochacha prohibits doing so. The only exception would be to offer the korban pesach, which is never described as ‘reiach nichoach’. (There exists a whole literature in achronim on the possibility of offering a korban even without the bais hamikdash standing – if I recall correctly, R’ Yechiel m’Paris, of the ba’alei hatosfos, suggested such a possibility, and it was widely debated in the 18th century by the likes of R’ Tzvi Hirsch Kalisher, R’ Akiva Eiger, and others).
According to the Netziv, it would be permissible to bring korbanos once this curse of ‘lo ariach’ is lifted even before the actual Bais haMikdash is completed, but what struck me is the condition he sets up for thaqt occurring - “ad sheyhiyeh he’ara min hashamayim v’rishyom m’umos ha’olam livnot beit hamikdash”. I am not sure if this is poetic flourish of some sort or to be taken literally, but it suggests that without some Heavenly sign or assistance (he’ara min hashamayim) and also without the permission of the non-Jews (rishyon m’umos) the Bais haMikdash cannot be rebuilt. True, the second Bais haMikdash was built only with the permission of Koresh, but I had assumed that was more of a practical matter because the Persian Empire controlled the location, not a halachic requirement. Does the Netziv here mean we need permission from the non-Jews also simply as a practical matter, or is there some halachic significance to this statement?