The Old Middle East

On June 13, 2025, the Israeli government instructed the IDF and Mossad to carry out a surprising and bold opening strike on Iranian soil. Mossad agents, special forces units, and air force pilots attacked hundreds of targets, including nuclear facilities, air defense capabilities, missiles, production facilities, and senior officials in the Iranian security establishment. Fifty-eight years have passed since the Six-Day War in June 1967 – and Israel has once again delivered a decisive blow to the enemy's rear. This represents a significant achievement that joins the many accomplishments of disrupting the Iranian terror axis in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Syria, and now in Tehran itself. Netanyahu estimated that US President Donald Trump would ultimately join the attack against Iran's nuclear facilities – and indeed this is what happened.

According to data recently presented by the Chief of Staff of IDF forces, Iran had approached a series of developments in the nuclear field and in conventional missiles that posed an existential threat to Israel. These developments raised concerns that if Israel delayed its response, we would be forced to enter a future military campaign from a position of inferiority. Unlike the US, Israel cannot afford this.

Photo: Major Ofer, Israeli Air Force

The Risks Behind the Success

All these operations prove that Israel changed on October 7th. We are no longer prepared to continue containing the strengthening of terror organizations and Iranian influence around us. We are moving from conflict management to defeating terror – and rightly so. However, alongside this, we must admit that in terms of results, Israel is marching toward a war of attrition. We are pushing the sword away from our necks only to discover that we are still drowning in the regional swamp.

In the 1990s, the Israeli right correctly argued that the Oslo Accords would not lead to a new Middle East. However, now those same right-wing elements are promising heaven and earth that the military campaign in Iran will lead us to the same new Middle East. The common logic behind these promises from both left and right is that it's possible to execute a quick and decisive move – military or political – that will lead us instantly to a new utopian reality. Therefore, it is crucial to clarify that the new Middle East is not around the corner.

Only when Middle Eastern countries – including Israel – adopt the value of human rights as a fundamental and unshakeable principle will we witness real change. But as long as we remain in a simplistic conception whereby bombing Tehran or geographical separation between us and the Palestinians will solve all our problems – we are necessarily at the very heart of the old Middle East.

Anarchy or War of Attrition

At the time of writing these lines, after the US attacked nuclear facilities on Iranian soil, it's impossible to predict how the current round of fighting will develop. It's reasonable to assume that Iran will not respond with full force against the US in order to deny the Americans the excuse to expand the attacks. Additionally, it's impossible to assess how the Trump administration will respond to Iranian attacks, and how Russia and China will behave if the campaign continues for a long time. At this stage, the only player whose behavior is more or less predictable is Israel. We can continue to operate in Iran in the same manner or seek a ceasefire. While the likely scenario is that the current round of fighting will end quickly because this is in the interest of all players in the campaign – this is not a certain determination.

Therefore, given the uncertainty characterizing the current round of war, it's recommended to examine the campaign's results from a long-term perspective. What is expected to happen if the Ayatollahs' regime in Iran collapses or survives?

In the first scenario of the Ayatollahs' regime collapse – the region is expected to collapse into anarchy. In modern history, there are only two alternatives for peaceful replacement of dictatorial regimes – either through external ground invasion or through internal uprising. There is no precedent for peaceful replacement of a dictatorial regime through aerial bombing. Saddam Hussein survived the heavy bombing of the first Gulf War, and even Japan absorbed two nuclear bombs and did not change the regime's foundations that relied on the emperor's religious status. Only after American forces entered Japan, and after the emperor decided to change the regime's foundations himself – did the desired change come. The expectation that bombing the Iranian regime will weaken it and lead in the future to a peaceful internal revolution is not based on reliable historical experience. It's more reasonable to assume that continued bombing will lead in the future to anarchy and internal civil war between all groups in Iranian society. This scenario has many historical examples.

Similar to precedents in Syria and Iraq in the last two decades, in the scenario of anarchy in Iran we are also expected to witness general regional radicalization. The clear product of this anarchy is the ISIS terror organization that conquered extensive areas in Iraq and Syria in 2014. Unlike Hezbollah which receives direct and comprehensive aid from Iran, ISIS did not receive similar aid from any regional power and yet succeeded in its conquests. The reason for its success was the weakness of Arab regimes that sank into anarchy. Since then ISIS has weakened due to regional military efforts – which led to the strengthening of the Iranian terror axis that carried out the October 7th attack against us. To this must be added the fact that as of now, Turkey's President Erdogan continues to voice threats of destruction against us and the impact of his moves in Syria has yet to be clarified.

This means that anarchy in Iran is very bad news for Israel. Rogue organizations like ISIS or the Houthis are expected to exploit the reality that will be created and they may try to plan a major mega-attack in Israel or even lead an attack similar to October 7th against us. Moreover, under these conditions we cannot hope that the Abraham Accords will lead to an effective result that will reduce terror and violence. The experience of the last five years has taught us that every small or large confrontation between Israel and Palestinians leads to a weakening of the Abraham Accords – exactly as happened to our peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan.

In the second scenario where the Ayatollahs' regime survives – Israel is expected to be caught in a war of attrition against Iran. The Ayatollahs' regime has proven many times in the past that it is determined to try to recover even after severe defeats. This happened after the Iran-Iraq war that lasted 8 years and included hundreds of thousands of Iranian casualties, and this also happened after harsh international sanctions were imposed on Iran and even after the Israeli attack last October [1]. All successors to the regime's founder Khomeini, the more extreme or less extreme, will never give up their military power. This means we will be forced without choice to attack their military production sites again and again. The current war proves that we cannot afford to live under the threat of thousands of ballistic missiles [2].

Given this, it can be assumed that Iran will attack Israel in response to bombing in its territory and thus the inevitable war of attrition between us and Iran will begin. Every few months or years we may find ourselves in rounds of fighting that will include our strikes in Iranian territory to cut off their military production, and they are expected to attack us in our territory through ballistic missile barrages or through terror attacks by their proxies in the Middle East.

It's important to clarify that Israel is in an inferior position in this expected war of attrition against Iran. Since the beginning of the campaign we have painfully discovered that we lost more than 20 casualties, and we also suffered hundreds of wounded and several strategic assets were damaged – including the Weizmann Institute for Scientific Research, the BAZAN Group energy facility, and Soroka Hospital. It's absolutely clear that we cannot continue like this for a long time. In contrast, Iran is an enormous country containing about 90 million citizens and its absorption capacity is much greater.

This means we are between a rock and a hard place. We must cut off the military threats emerging from Iran but we cannot hold out alone for a long time under conditions of war of attrition. On the other hand, if the Iranian regime collapses we are expected to deal with anarchy and regional radicalization.

Iranian missile strike on a building in Ramat Gan. Photographed on June 17, 2025. Photo: Yoav Shurok

The international community and the American public are watching these developments from the sidelines with growing concerns. They know we cannot hold out if they impose economic sanctions on us or stop sending us military equipment. On the other hand, unlike us they feel less threatened by the Iranian missile program or terror organizations in the region. The collapse of the global energy economy deters them more. The fact that all the scenarios presented above lead the region to more and more wars is not acceptable to them – and rightly so. The American public has endured enough in Iraq and Afghanistan and is fed up with such conflicts. Under these conditions we are not offering them any positive scenario that would encourage them to stand by our side. This is the reason why the Trump administration attacked nuclear facilities in Iran without an international coalition and contrary to the position of the majority of the American public and an important part of his prominent supporters.

The Need for a Regional Alliance

What we lack is a positive horizon. Hope for a third possibility that will lead us to safe shores that is neither anarchy nor war of attrition. The fact that our government instructed the IDF to prepare for this attack for many months while neglecting the political front is inconceivable. The choice to expand the war in the Gaza Strip instead of seeking regional normalization as preparation for the attack on Iran is a serious historical mistake that now places us between a rock and a hard place.

Only regional normalization based on equal rights among all peoples of the Middle East can change the strategic picture. This regional alliance is expected to create two security advantages –

First, to convince the world powers and American public opinion that there is an alternative to a more peaceful Middle East. This can be demonstrated through the ceasefire agreement that came into effect in November 2024 between us and Lebanon. After we militarily hit Hezbollah and weakened it, we wisely chose to withdraw and let the Lebanese government continue to restrain Hezbollah. Only when the Lebanese government fails in its role do we act ourselves against Hezbollah on Lebanese soil. Thus the Lebanese government is getting stronger and Hezbollah is getting weaker. This combination of political alliance and military raids has made Lebanon the least dangerous front for us and even indirectly led to the fall of Assad's regime. If we succeed in promoting similar cooperation with additional countries in the region against the various terror organizations we will be able to weaken them over time.

Second, to create a message of tolerant Islam that will encourage positive internal change in Iran and all other Middle Eastern countries.

As a result, if the Iranian regime falls and the region is dragged into anarchy, this regional alliance would be able to reduce tensions and stabilize regimes in the region. On the other hand, if the Ayatollahs' regime survives then this regional alliance will convince the world powers to set effective red lines for Iran that will include both the missile program and the terror organizations supported by it. Future US presidents will not have to attack Iran facing hostile public opinion and heavy concerns about the stability of the global energy economy.

The hoped-for regional alliance between us and Saudi Arabia and regional countries is not a pacifist alliance. It's clear to all that we will continue to be forced to use military force and deal with radicalization and terror organizations. However, this alliance will present to all peoples of the Middle East the light at the end of the tunnel. It will prove to all of us that if we work together for long years we will succeed in securing the future of our children and grandchildren. Now, after the expansion of the war between us and Iran, we must internalize that our need for warm peace with Arab countries has become an existential security need.

However, an alliance with Saudi Arabia has a condition that was clearly set by the Saudi royal house – we must determinedly seek the establishment of a Palestinian state. Equal rights among Middle Eastern peoples includes them too. Otherwise, any terror organization will be able to harm us, cool this regional alliance and make it ineffective.

After October 7th, the Israeli public's deterrence from the phrase "Palestinian state" is understandable and clear but nevertheless it is wrong. For years we were told that a Palestinian state might launch missile barrages against us – and now it has become clear that Iran might also launch much more dangerous missile barrages against us. Moreover, despite all the arrests, house demolitions, settlement expansion and raids throughout the West Bank since October 7th – nevertheless, Home Front Command chief Major General Rafi Milo recently said that "the threat in Bat Hefer (central Israel - i.p.) is greater than in the Gaza envelope". In simple words – the occupation doesn't work. The cities of Gush Dan in central Israel are now threatened exactly as they would be after a Palestinian state is established. We don't have enough soldiers and interceptor missiles for all fronts.

Given this, it's impossible to understand why we Israelis prefer the existing dangers in the current situation just to avoid the existing dangers in establishing a Palestinian state. All the dangers that might arise from a Palestinian state are already happening before our eyes right now, and therefore it's better for us to seek regional normalization and try to gain its advantages. Before October 7th we chose to contain terror to avoid establishing a Palestinian state and now we are choosing to drown in regional wars of attrition for exactly the same reason. The government has not awakened and the conception has not changed.

Members of the Anachnu movement, May 2025. Photo: Anachnu movement.

Conclusion

The current war has proven our boldness and temporarily pushed the sword away from our necks. However, the continued avoidance of promoting regional normalization constitutes the most serious neglect. As I have argued in the past, in the absence of a political vision both we and Iran will continue to lose in this war of attrition. Therefore we must be alert, determined and ready to pay heavy prices in order to seek to establish warm peace between us and the Palestinians and other countries in the region.

The absence of the political vision that would give us hope for a worthy future is epitomized in Netanyahu's words after the American attack: "First comes force, then comes peace". According to this worldview, our role is to use military force and then we can only hope that peace will come. Given this, we must proudly present a new conception –

Vision first, then strength and peace, and then reconciliation comes.

Support us

[1] In the press conference Netanyahu held on June 22, 2025, he claimed that even after Israel's attack on Iranian soil last October, the Iranians planned to return to producing conventional missiles at a rapid pace. He said: "... We also saw that they decided after... we counterattacked them and destroyed a lot of their missile production capability... that they were actually developing a plan to build 300 ballistic missiles a month - that's 20,000 missiles in 6 years". (Click here | 25:53).

[2] Netanyahu declared that if Iran tries to rehabilitate its nuclear or missile program then Israel's future attacks in Iran will not aim only "...to prevent an attack, but an attack to exact prices from the Iranian regime." Therefore it's unclear why Netanyahu believes that Israel will not be dragged into a war of attrition with Iran - "We will not be dragged into a war of attrition, but we will also not end this operation... before we achieve all our goals." Click here | 21:47.