TEHRAN – For over a year, under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel has maintained an unyielding campaign against Gaza. But recent moves indicate that Gaza is merely the beginning, as Netanyahu’s ambitions appear to extend into southern Lebanon, Yemen, and even the clandestine realm of global intelligence operations.

High-profile incidents—such as the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh following Iran’s presidential inauguration and the attack on the Iranian embassy—signal a policy direction that, rather than securing Israel, may in fact be precipitating far greater risks to its long-term security and strategic standing.

These intensified actions raise fundamental questions about the logic of Israel’s strategy under Netanyahu’s government. By any classical standard in international relations, a state’s core purpose is to secure its stability within a rationally ordered regional landscape. Yet Netanyahu’s approach seems to produce the exact opposite result, fanning the flames of regional opposition, fraying vital alliances, and broadening the scope of confrontation in ways that could ultimately backfire. By examining Netanyahu’s stated objectives—namely, the dismantling of Hamas and liberation of hostages from the October 7 attacks—it becomes evident that his methods may not only fall short but actively undermine Israel’s own security and regional standing.

Strategic objectives vs. Ground realities

The Netanyahu administration has set forth two principal goals: the complete dismantlement of Hamas and the release of hostages. Yet, after the tragic loss of over 40,000 civilian lives and widespread devastation in Gaza, these objectives remain painfully distant. Instead of securing victory, Netanyahu’s tactics have provoked a wave of global condemnation, casting Israel as a violator of humanitarian norms. The irony here is palpable: Israel, once the self-proclaimed “only democracy” in the Middle East, now finds itself on the precipice of pariah status.

From a political science perspective, Israel once held a position as a “norm entrepreneur”—a state that aspired to embody democratic values in a region otherwise dominated by autocratic regimes. Netanyahu’s aggressive strategy, however, is dismantling this image, eroding Israel’s moral standing and risking isolation from its most important allies. A dramatic shift in international perception is not just a reputational blow but a potential existential crisis for Israel, reducing its credibility and weakening the alliance base on which it has long depended.

The myth of Israel’s impenetrable defence systems

For decades, Israel’s defence systems, particularly the Iron Dome, were regarded as nearly invulnerable, a technological bulwark that protected its citizens from external threats. But recent events have shattered this myth, exposing vulnerabilities that were previously unthinkable. Iran’s advancements in ballistic missiles and drone warfare have reached a level few expected, posing a credible threat capable of breaching Israel’s once-impenetrable defences.

The efficacy of Iran’s missile capabilities in bypassing Israeli defence systems signifies a profound shift in the regional balance of power. Furthermore, the recent success of Iran’s air defence system in intercepting attacks has stunned military analysts worldwide, casting doubt on the perceived superiority of Israel’s defences. What once seemed like an unassailable shield now appears alarmingly porous, shifting the power dynamics and challenging the notion that Israel’s military technology alone can secure its borders.

Eroding support among Western allies

Netanyahu’s increasingly hard-line strategy has placed Israel’s Western allies, especially the United States and key European nations, in an awkward position. These allies, once steadfast in their support, now face rising domestic opposition to Israel’s actions, as citizens question their governments’ endorsement of policies that seem to bring no end to civilian suffering. This growing discontent directly undermines one of Israel’s longstanding security strategies: its reliance on the West for both military and diplomatic support.

The erosion of support is already materialising. Even French President Emmanuel Macron—historically a strong ally of Israel—has recently suggested imposing sanctions on military equipment exports to Israel. While some might interpret this as mere political posturing, it reflects a profound shift in European attitudes toward Israel. This new scepticism from Israel’s closest allies signals a potential recalibration of Western alliances, a shift that could ultimately leave Israel more isolated in an already hostile region.

Iran’s ascendant ballistic missile and drone capabilities

A critical element in the changing regional power dynamics is Iran’s impressive arsenal of ballistic missiles, drones, and anti-air defences. Over the past few years, Iran has developed a robust suite of technologies that not only challenges Israel’s missile defences but also poses a serious threat across vast distances. This emerging capability shifts Israel from a position of technological superiority to one of strategic vulnerability, fundamentally altering the calculus of regional security.

Iran’s expanded missile and drone capacities add a credible deterrent factor, effectively counterbalancing Israel’s former dominance. This new level of threat not only impacts Israel’s military strategy but also complicates the decision-making calculus for Israel’s allies. Iran’s strengthened arsenal underscores a critical evolution: Israel is no longer the only player in the region with advanced technological capabilities, leaving it vulnerable to strikes that it can no longer confidently intercept.

The pitfalls of Israel’s decapitation strategy

Israel’s tactic of assassinating leaders within Hezbollah, Hamas, and other opposition groups is an approach as shortsighted as it is well-documented. Known in military and political science literature as the “decapitation strategy,” it aims to dismantle these groups by removing their figureheads. Yet decades of study and real-world experience have shown this approach to be deeply flawed. Time and again, history demonstrates that removing the leaders of resistance movements does little to destabilize these groups and often ushers in more resolute, more radical successors.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the targeted assassination of Hezbollah leaders could indeed create a temporary leadership void. Such a vacuum would be catastrophic not for Hezbollah but for Israel’s strategic aims. Hezbollah, particularly under Hassan Nasrallah, has not only demonstrated resilience in defending Lebanese territory but has developed sophisticated political influence. Hezbollah’s role extends far beyond its militant operations; it is a political entity capable of translating military prowess into significant political leverage. By eliminating these leaders, Israel risks destroying any chance of engaging in negotiations or finding a diplomatic resolution.

Moreover, if Hezbollah’s leadership were destabilized, the resulting fragmentation would likely decrease Iran’s influence over the group, paradoxically making Hezbollah less susceptible to Tehran’s guidance and more unpredictable. Iran, having lost a degree of control, would be less inclined to play any role in future ceasefires. Israel’s decapitation strategy thus accomplishes little more than creating leaderless, embittered factions whose members are even less likely to negotiate and far more inclined toward perpetual conflict.

Israel has witnessed the dangers of this approach firsthand in Iraq, where fragmented, leaderless groups evolved into guerrilla forces, wreaking havoc on U.S. troops. Unlike a hierarchical organization, a decentralized resistance operates like a shadow, making intelligence gathering and targeted operations exceedingly difficult. The thought of Israel’s forces confronting a nebulous, leaderless resistance in Lebanon is a nightmarish prospect, to put it mildly. Netanyahu’s decapitation strategy thus risks dragging Israel into a conflict with an unstructured, elusive enemy, leaving its forces increasingly vulnerable.

A strengthening Axis of Resistance

Israel’s unyielding policies have inadvertently strengthened a coalition of resistance factions across the Middle East. These factions, once disparate, are now coalescing into a formidable alliance driven by shared grievances against what they perceive as a common aggressor. Classic balance-of-power theory illustrates how weaker states and factions unite to counterbalance a dominant force, and Netanyahu’s tactics are accelerating this phenomenon. Far from consolidating Israel’s security, Netanyahu’s policies are creating a united front in opposition.

This alliance is no longer confined to Lebanon’s Hezbollah or Syria’s splintered factions but now includes Iran itself—a state armed with advanced missile and drone technology capable of posing direct and indirect threats to Israeli interests. In his zeal for dominance, Netanyahu may have unwittingly achieved what no other regional actor could: he has unified Israel’s adversaries against him.

The faltering prospects of Saudi-Israel normalisation

One of Israel’s most promising diplomatic avenues has been the potential normalization of relations with Saudi Arabia. Yet Netanyahu’s increasingly belligerent policies have rendered this nearly impossible. Public outrage across the Arab world has intensified to such a degree that no Arab leader can consider rapprochement without risking severe backlash.

The concept of “social legitimacy” is essential here: leaders who ignore their populations’ sentiments do so at their peril. By further isolating Israel, Netanyahu has effectively foreclosed the possibility of meaningful diplomatic breakthroughs. The once-promising path to normalized relations with Saudi Arabia—a critical move for Israel’s security—is now all but a lost cause.

Economic consequences for Europe

If this conflict escalates further, European economies could face catastrophic consequences, especially as they are still grappling with the aftermath of the Ukraine war. For European nations already strained by the energy crisis and pandemic-related economic instability, a disruption in Persian Gulf oil supplies could tip the balance into full-blown recession. Iran has the capability to block vital oil routes in the Gulf, a move that would cripple European economies.

This scenario creates a severe dilemma for Israel’s Western allies. Torn between their strategic commitment to Israel and the stark reality of economic dependence on Middle Eastern oil, European leaders may be forced to reconsider their support. Netanyahu’s gamble thus threatens to alienate Israel’s allies, placing Israel’s security on an increasingly precarious foundation.

Global implications: China’s strategic calculus

The potential disruption of oil flow through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery supplying a significant portion of China’s energy needs—could leave Beijing with no choice but to adopt a more assertive role in this conflict. For China, protecting this lifeline is a strategic necessity; prolonged instability in these waters would imperil its energy security and, in turn, its economic stability. Such an escalation presents Israel with a formidable new challenge, carrying consequences far graver than any regional rivalry. Should China be compelled to engage in a conflict it would otherwise avoid, Israel would find itself contending with a global power driven by imperatives that go well beyond diplomatic negotiation. The activation of Chinese interests in the region would raise the stakes to unprecedented levels, pulling Israel into a sphere of great-power competition for which it is neither prepared nor equipped to manage effectively.

Israel’s vulnerability in prolonged conflict

An under-discussed vulnerability of Israel’s current approach lies in its societal resilience. Unlike many of its neighbours, Israel has a high percentage of citizens with dual citizenship, offering them the option to emigrate in times of prolonged conflict. This flexibility could lead to a troubling outflow of population in a sustained crisis, potentially impairing Israel’s economy and military readiness.

In conflicts of endurance, victory often belongs not to the side with superior weaponry but to the side that can withstand prolonged hardship. Israel’s susceptibility to internal destabilization presents a profound liability that Netanyahu appears to ignore, and as costs mount, Israel’s ability to persevere may erode.

Netanyahu’s approach—characterized by relentless offensives and extra-judicial assassinations—fails not only to meet its stated objectives but actively jeopardizes Israel’s stability. By isolating itself from allies, strengthening regional opposition, and risking an entanglement with Iran, Israel’s current strategy appears more a self-destructive gamble than a coherent defense policy.

In political terms, Netanyahu’s path resembles a Faustian bargain: military might alone cannot secure peace or stability. Israel’s future lies in diplomacy, alliance-building, and a commitment to regional stability—principles that Netanyahu seems tragically determined to abandon.