What began as a focused conflict between Israel and Hamas has morphed into a complex regional crisis that threatens to engulf the entire Middle East. Despite intensive diplomatic efforts from both Western powers and Arabian Gulf states, the situation continues to get worse, with military action becoming less a means to peace and more an end in itself. The results of the American elections have added to the complex situation, in terms of what policy direction will president elect Trump take after his inauguration on January 20th next year. His administration was the architect of the Abraham Accords reached in 2020, which envisioned normalization of Arab Israeli ties – accompanied by two-state solution.
Netanyahu’s war Strategy and Domestic Pressures
In the aftermath of October 7, Israel’s military response has evolved into a pattern of expanding operations that extends far beyond its initial defensive posture. Under Netanyahu’s leadership, the emphasis is on military action irrespective of the cost, rather than diplomatic engagement. The strategy is most visible in two key theaters. In Gaza, where the conflict began, Israel has made its intentions clear through leaflets declaring “Hamas will no longer rule Gaza,” suggesting plans for a fundamental restructuring of the territory’s governance. Netanyahu’s approach is defined by several consistent elements: an unwavering rejection of the two-state solution, a commitment to military rather than diplomatic solutions, and a stated goal of eliminating both Hamas and Hezbollah. His vision extends beyond immediate security concerns to what he describes as “reshaping the region’s security landscape for future generations.” Some call this a version of the Greater Israel approach. This expansive military strategy has manifested in multiple forms: the deployment of forces to Lebanon, sustained operations in Gaza, reinforced positions along the Golan Heights, and over 220 strikes in Syria. Each action suggests a regional approach to security that prioritizes military control over diplomatic compromise. Israel’s security challenges extend far beyond Lebanon.
The Houthi forces in Yemen have opened a maritime front, targeting Israeli-linked ships in the Gulf of Aden and forcing Israel to consider establishing a military base in Somaliland. Iraq’s Islamic Resistance has joined the fray with drone strikes, while Syria serves as a strategic haven for Hezbollah while maintaining support from both Iran and Russia. Russia’s role adds another layer of difficulty, warning Israel against attacking either Syrian President Assad’s regime or Iranian nuclear facilities. The Recent Russian bombing of rebel-held areas in Syria serves as a reminder of Moscow’s military presence and its potential to intervene. The broader implications of this strategy are still unfolding, as Israel balances its military objectives against growing international pressure and regional resistance.
However, Netanyahu remains steadfast in his position that Israel will “stand alone if needed,” suggesting a long-term expansive security approach regardless of international opinion or diplomatic alternatives.
This hardline stance also serves a domestic political purpose. With Israel experiencing widening divisions between secular elites and the farright, Netanyahu has positioned the war as crucial not only for national security but for his own political survival. Even attacks on his private residence have been leveraged to reinforce this narrative of unwavering determination.
The Multi-Front Challenge
Israel’s military ambitions are most visible in Lebanon, where Operation Northern Arrows has expanded far beyond its initial scope of “limited, localized raids.” The deployment of over 15,000 troops across four army divisions suggests potential territorial ambitions reminiscent of Israel’s 1981 annexation of the Golan Heights.
However, Hezbollah has proven a formidable opponent. Despite losing key leaders, including Hassan Nasrallah, the group maintains significant combat capabilities with an arsenal of 150,000 rockets, missiles, and drones. Under the new Secretary General Naim Qassem, Hezbollah has adapted its strategy, combining traditional guerrilla warfare with sophisticated drone strikes that have exposed vulnerabilities in Israel’s defenses. Reports estimate Hezbollah has a stockpile of about 2,000 long-range drones capable of striking targets up to 2,000 km away.
The human cost has been substantial, with Israel suffering over 700 military fatalities and thousands of wounded soldiers. This has forced heavy reliance on reservists, raising questions about their effectiveness against Hezbollah’s experienced fighters. Despite Defense Minister Yoav Gallant’s attempts to boost morale by claiming Hezbollah is “collapsing,” continued rocket salvos into Israel suggest otherwise.
Iran’s Diplomatic and Military Maneuvers
Iran has emerged as a sophisticated player in this expanding conflict, balancing military deterrence with diplomatic outreach. While maintaining the threat of harsh retaliation for any Israeli attacks, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has conducted an aggressive diplomatic campaign, strengthening ties not only with traditional allies but also with countries having peace agreements with Israel. This diplomatic offensive has included warnings to Gulf Arab states against allowing their airspace or military bases to be used by Israel, while simultaneously calling for regional cooperation to prevent Lebanon from becoming “another Gaza.” Turkey has emerged as Iran’s most vocal supporter, promising backing if Israel draws Iran into direct conflict.
Strains in the Western Alliance
With its emphasis on military solution that has come at a tremendous human toll, Israel’s relationships with Western allies show increasing strain. European nations are divided, with some calling for weapons sales restrictions and potential sanctions against farright Israeli ministers. France’s President Macron has repeatedly urged countries to stop arms deliveries to Israel, while Spain and Ireland push for reevaluating EU-Israel relationships. Germany, however, remains steadfast as Israel’s second-largest arms supplier after the U.S. The U.S.- Israel relationship faces its own complications. While the U.S. has deployed anti-missile systems and forces to support Israel’s defenses, it has also warned of potentially cutting off arms shipments unless more humanitarian aid reaches Gaza. Netanyahu appears to be looking beyond current tensions, possibly anticipating renewed support under the Trump presidency.
Conclusion
The conflict has evolved into a war of attrition, with both Israel and Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” seeking to exhaust each other militarily. However, this strategy risks indefinite conflict escalation. Even if a ceasefire is achieved, deep-rooted ideological animosities suggest continued regional instability. For Iran and its allies, the struggle against Israeli Zionism represents a religious obligation. Israel, conversely, appears committed to pursuing regime change in Iran and neutralizing its proxy forces. This fundamental clash of worldviews, combined with historical grievances and religious differences, has created a self-perpetuating cycle of violence that continues to reshape the Middle East’s political landscape.
As the conflict enters new phases, neither side shows signs of backing down. Netanyahu maintains his position that Israel will stand alone if necessary, while Iran continues to strengthen its regional alliances with the backing of Russia and China. The intersection of religious conviction, political ambition, and great power competition has created a complex web of conflicts that threatens to permanently alter the region’s security architecture. Without significant diplomatic breakthroughs or shifts in strategic thinking from key players, the Middle East appears set for continued instability and potential further escalation. Possibly the best result at this point can be the renewal of the Abraham Accord as President Trump returns to office. However, it was the very apprehensions regarding the ‘Outside In’ approach, associated with the Abraham Accords, which also caused the October 7 Hamas attack last year.
The “Outside-In” approach refers to Israel’s strategy of normalizing relations with Arab and Muslim-majority countries to foster regional stability and security. This strategy was notably advanced through the Abraham Accords in 2020, which established diplomatic ties between Israel and nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco – but left out the Palestinians.
Rekindling the Abraham Accords would mean accepting the two-state premise as agreed in the 1995 Oslo Accords. It would also require a cessation of military hostilities and inflow of massive humanitarian assistance for Gaza – followed by the reconstruction phase in earnest. The stickiest point, if the two-state solution remains on the table, would be who now represents the Palestinians.
