MADRID – The offensive of October 7, 2023, was far more than just another episode in the long-standing Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was a seismic event that shattered the foundations of the existing regional order, triggering a chain of developments that have redefined alliances, security doctrines, and the balance of power.

By mid-October, few in Tehran could have anticipated that the echoes of the gunfire in Gaza would reverberate so powerfully in Iranian geopolitics. As several analysts have noted, “the Middle East as it existed before October 7 no longer exists.” Since that day, the region has moved from an order seeking normalization under the U.S. umbrella toward a more multipolar, volatile landscape defined by competition among local actors.

At the heart of this new geopolitical board sits the Islamic Republic of Iran, a state that, following the significant recalibration of its 'forward defense' strategy, is undergoing a complex process of readjustment to safeguard its influence and national security in a radically transformed environment.

The collapse of the previous paradigm: Beyond normalization

Before October 7, the dominant trajectory in the region—driven by Washington and embraced by several Arab capitals—was toward gradual normalization with Israel. The Abraham Accords sought to sideline the Palestinian issue and structure a Sunni-Israeli axis against Axis of Resistance led by Tehran. However, Operation “Al-Aqsa Storm” and the subsequent devastating Israeli campaign in Gaza shattered that narrative.

The Arab-Israeli normalization process has now stalled. U.S. efforts to revive it through ceasefires in Gaza clash with reality: Israeli actions post-October 7—from occupations in Syria to the 12-day war with Iran and attacks on Qatar—have generated deep mistrust of Tel Aviv among Arab capitals.

The Palestinian issue reemerged with unprecedented global intensity. Images of devastation in Gaza decisively undermined Israel’s international legitimacy, shifting its perception from that of a historical victim to an occupying power wielding disproportionate force. While the two-state solution remains imperfect and far from fully realized, it continues to be invoked internationally as a framework for addressing Palestinian self-determination and ending occupation. Solidarity with the Palestinian cause has transcended the Muslim world, resonating across Western societies where civil, academic, and youth movements increasingly frame it as a matter of global justice and ethical responsibility.

Meanwhile, the response of Western governments, perceived as complicity or passivity, exposed a double standard that undermined the moral authority of Washington and Brussels, accelerating the search for alternatives among Arab states. Consequently, the perception of threats in the Arab world has been reshaped: Iran is no longer seen as the primary source of instability, while Israel has emerged as the most immediate and existential threat to the Palestinian cause and Arab dignity.

The new doctrines of Iran and Israel 

In response to this environment, Israel has adopted a significant doctrinal shift. Its traditional deterrence strategy, based on conventional superiority and punitive strikes, has evolved into what could be termed a doctrine of “Strategic Confinement.”

This approach seeks to impose constant pressure on the entire Resistance infrastructure: it targets not only senior leaders but also mid-level cadres, ideologues, engineers, and financiers, forcing the pillars of the system to focus their energy on mere survival. The war of attrition moves from the battlefield to the mind of the organization, aiming for strategic paralysis through exhaustion.

For Iran, October 7 and Israel’s new doctrine represent a major strategic challenge. The cornerstone of its security policy has long been the “forward defense” strategy, based on allies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Yemen’s forces, and Iraqi militias. This model allowed Tehran to project power and maintain credible deterrence without engaging in direct conflicts on its own soil.

Recent events, however, have tested this framework to its limits. Iran has been drawn into direct confrontations with Israel, a scenario it had long sought to avoid. Operations such as “True Promise,” involving coordinated drone and ballistic missile strikes, marked a point of no return, demonstrating capability and willingness for deterrence without escalating into full-scale war.

At the same time, the advanced defense network has revealed operational tensions and vulnerabilities. Hezbollah has suffered setbacks in leadership, and political transformations in Syria have partially reduced Tehran’s strategic depth. Yet, these challenges have not stopped key allies. Hezbollah, in particular, shows resilience and gradual reconstruction, reinforcing its military capabilities and maintaining a central role in regional deterrence.
These dynamics underscore the complexity of Iran’s challenges and the need for a comprehensive approach. The strategy combines maintaining credible deterrence across all options with efforts to strengthen economic stability and expand international integration. Simultaneously, Tehran continues recalibrating tactics, reinforcing allies, and preserving its power projection, balancing risks and opportunities in a highly volatile environment.

Despite Israeli attacks and external pressures, the Axis of Resistance has neither disappeared nor will it. Its strength lies not only in military capabilities but in the anti-colonial narrative it embodies, which continues to resonate in the region and consolidate its political and strategic legitimacy. The Resistance, far from being weakened, adapts, rebuilds, and retains its role as a central actor in the regional balance.

Diplomatic re-adjustment and regional strategy

The Islamic Republic of Iran faces a strategic crossroads of the highest order. The shadow of recurring conflict looms over its national security, while economic pressure seeks to constrain its room for maneuver. This situation compels Tehran to deploy more creative and adaptive strategies to safeguard its influence and security in a highly complex environment.

Within this context of overlapping pressures, Iran’s strategic recalibration unfolds along multiple directions. Diplomatically, Tehran has intensified engagement with Persian Gulf monarchies, culminating in joint naval exercises with Saudi Arabia that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. There is a tacit acknowledgment that, beyond ideological differences, geography imposes the need for coexistence and stability. This approach also reflects Riyadh’s recognition that, in its pursuit of Vision 2030, regional stability is a priority and that any attempt at normalization with Israel must first account for a stable relationship with Tehran.

Historically, Tel Aviv has sought a weakened and constrained Iran, an actor incapable of projecting regional influence. However, West Asian capitals have come to understand that Iran remains a key strategic counterbalance. The absence of Tehran as a regional power would remove an essential check on Israel’s hegemonic ambitions, dangerously destabilizing the regional balance of power.

A new regional order is inevitable 

West Asia after October 7 appears radically different: fragmented, multipolar, and marked by competition among increasingly capable local actors. U.S. hegemony and the Arab-Israeli normalization process have lost centrality, while Iran maintains its role as a key deterrent actor in the region.

The strategic tension between maintaining advanced deterrence options and promoting economic and diplomatic stability reflects the challenges defining Iran’s position in this new phase. The future configuration of regional security will depend on Tehran’s ability to balance influence, deterrence, and diplomacy. 

The regional board has been redesigned: the era of normalization under U.S. hegemony has given way to competitive multipolarity, where resistance, deterrence, and calculated diplomacy will shape the trajectory of West Asia.