The current conflict in the Middle East is not simply a consequence of regional tensions, but the result of a policy long matured by figures such as Benjamin Netanyahu. Behind every decision of the Israeli prime minister, one perceives a complex strategy, shaped by a very precise ideological vision of the world and the Middle East. Tracing Netanyahu’s political trajectory, it is clear that this war and its stakes are not the result of chance, but rather the realization of a vision defined from his diplomatic beginnings. The close ties between Netanyahu, AIPAC, American Republicans, and neoconservatives have helped shape a strategy hinged around confrontation with Iran, the invisibilization of the Palestinians, and the establishment of a new regional order.
The invisibilization of the Palestinians, the colonial expansion and the destruction of UNRWA
Since taking office as Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Benjamin Netanyahu has formulated a policy aimed at making the Palestinians invisible on the international stage, a policy that has been reinforced with his accession to power in Israel. This strategy includes the gradual destruction of the right of return of Palestinian refugees, enshrined in UN Resolution 194 adopted in 1948, and the territorial fragmentation of Palestine through the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The massive establishment of settlements in the occupied territories, which are illegal under international law, has the effect of making any establishment of a Palestinian State increasingly difficult, if not impossible. As of 2023, approximately 700,000 Israeli settlers lived in the West Bank, consolidating extensive Israeli territorial control, fragmenting Palestinian lands and weakening their geographical continuity. This expansion is encouraged by successive governments of Netanyahu, who sees this strategy as a crucial lever to weaken Palestinian resistance.
Alongside this territorial policy, Netanyahu has pursued a clear goal: the erasure of the Palestinian refugees’ right of return, a fundamental right enshrined in UN Resolution 194 that would allow them to return to their ancestral lands in Palestine. The first obstacle to this goal, according to Israeli logic, is UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East), an international agency that supports Palestinian refugees, mainly in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and the Palestinian territories.
The Palestinian presence in Lebanon: A strategic issue for Israel
Lebanon has been home to a large population of Palestinian refugees since 1948, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from their land during the Arab-Israeli war. Today, nearly 450,000 Palestinians still live in Lebanon, mostly in underfunded and overcrowded refugee camps. These refugees, deprived of civil and economic rights in Lebanon, are perceived as a demographic and political threat to both Lebanon and Israel. For Israel, the existence of this diaspora represents a constant reminder of the Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948 and the right of return that these refugees claim.
One of the solutions promoted by Netanyahu to resolve this issue is to bring Palestinian refugees into the host countries, particularly Lebanon. The objective is twofold: on the one hand, to erase the right of return by pushing these refugees to settle permanently in Lebanon, and on the other hand, to ease the pressure on Israel by reducing the influence of these populations on the international scene. This permanent settlement would thus deprive the refugees of their status and put an end to their historical claims.
The Abraham Accords and the Palestinian settlement project
The Abraham Accords, signed in 2020 under the Trump administration, opened a new chapter in relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. These agreements, beyond diplomatic and economic normalization, contain implicit aspects related to the Palestinian issue, although this is not the focus of the negotiations. However, Israel sees these agreements as leverage to advance its long-term strategic objectives, including Palestinian settlement in third countries, particularly Lebanon.
Sources close to the Abraham Accords negotiations suggest that Israel could use these new alliances to pressure countries like Lebanon to facilitate the integration of Palestinian refugees. Although this project is not officially mentioned in the agreements, it is part of a broader logic of regional normalization that would eventually include a redefinition of the status of Palestinian refugees. The idea is that Arab countries, especially those with good relations with the United States and Israel, could be encouraged to accept more responsibility for dealing with Palestinian refugees, thus facilitating their settlement in host societies.
Netanyahu and the failure of his alliance axis against Iran: The effect of Chinese mediation
In parallel with his strategy of marginalizing the Palestinians, Netanyahu has also tried to set up an axis of alliance with several Arab countries against Iran. The idea was to create a united Sunni Arab coalition with Israel against the perceived threat of Shiite Iran. This alliance was to build on the Abraham Accords, expanding the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab states to include regional security cooperation against Iran. Indeed, Israel and several Sunni Arab states share common opposition to Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East, including Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.
However, this attempt at an alliance has encountered major obstacles. Chinese mediation, which resulted in a historic reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023, has significantly weakened Netanyahu’s efforts. China, by intervening as a mediator between these two regional powers, has re-established diplomatic relations between Riyadh and Tehran, reducing the likelihood of a strong anti-Iran coalition. This reconciliation showed that the influence of the US and Israel was no longer as decisive as it used to be in the region, and that other global players, such as China, now played a key role in redefining alliances in the Middle East.
This Chinese mediation has put a stop to Netanyahu’s ambitions to rally Arab states to his cause against Iran. The rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran also complicates Netanyahu’s attempts to push the Gulf states to engage more directly against Iranian influence in conflicts such as the one in Lebanon or Syria.
China and its interests in protecting Iran’s oil facilities
China also plays an important role in strongly opposing any attack on Iranian oil facilities. As the main customer of Iranian oil, China sees these facilities as crucial to its own overarching economic interests. Beijing has voiced its opposition to any military escalation that could jeopardize energy supplies from Iran. Thus, any Israeli strike on this infrastructure would not only have political and economic repercussions, but would also risk provoking tensions with China, adding another layer of complexity to Netanyahu’s military ambitions.
China, through its close trade relations with Iran, has a lot to lose in the event of serious disruptions in the flow of Iranian oil. Chinese initiatives in the region, including through its Belt and Road Initiative projects, are largely dependent on economic and political stability in Iran. This puts China in direct opposition to any Israeli strategy to strike critical oil targets in Iran, risking undermining Israeli efforts to weaken Tehran’s economy.
Iran and its strategy of sanctuarization: A game of nuclear dominoes
Aware of the constant military threats posed by Israel and its allies, Iran has sought to sanctuarize its territory through several military and geopolitical strategies. One of Iran’s main responses to these threats has been the creation of regional militia networks, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, which serve to expand Iranian influence and contain Israeli military pressure
and Saudi Arabia.
However, Iran’s strategy is not limited to the creation of paramilitary networks. As early as the 1980s, Iran began exploring a nuclear program, motivated in part by the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), a devastating war that pushed Iran to bolster its defense capabilities. That war marked a major turning point in the potential militarization of Iran’s nuclear program. The conflict reinforced Tehran’s sense of strategic vulnerability, especially since Saddam Hussein was pursuing his own nuclear program before the Osirak plant was destroyed by an Israeli strike in 1981.
Iran has seen the need to develop superior defensive capabilities to avoid suffering the same fate as Iraq. This logic of nuclear deterrence has been imposed over the decades, particularly in the face of the Israeli threat. However, it is important to note that Iran’s interest in nuclear did not begin with the Islamic Revolution or the war with Iraq, but dates back to the time of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
In the 1970s, before the Islamic Revolution, Iran was already engaged in a civilian nuclear program, with potential military ambitions. The Shah had signed cooperation agreements with several Western countries, including France, for the development of nuclear energy. Iran was even a shareholder in Eurodif, a Franco-Iranian consortium dedicated to uranium enrichment, until the Islamic Revolution turned the situation upside down. At that time, Iran was seeking to acquire a nuclear capability that, under the guise of civilian objectives, could potentially be converted into a military force, an option that has remained present in Iranian strategy to this day.
In this dynamic of regional deterrence, Iran has also intensified its ballistic capabilities. In October 2024, Iran carried out a missile strike on the Nevatim airbase in the Negev, near Israel’s Dimona nuclear power plant. This attack, although largely intercepted by the Israeli defense system, demonstrated Tehran’s ability to saturate Israeli defenses and directly threaten Israeli strategic installations.
The message sent by Iran was clear: any Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities could lead to similar retaliation against Israeli nuclear infrastructure. This exchange illustrates the spiraling nuclear threats in the region, with each actor seeking to deter the other from launching an offensive that could escalate into a regional nuclear conflict.
The Palestinian question remains central to the Arab populations
Although the leaders of several Arab states have agreed to the normalization of relations with Israel within the framework of the Abraham Accords, the Palestinian question remains deeply rooted in the consciousness of the Arab population. Popular demonstrations and protests against normalization with Israel are a regular reminder that the Palestinian cause remains an emotional and political rallying point for millions of Arabs. The normalization of relations with Israel is seen as a betrayal by large segments of these societies, who see the continued oppression of Palestinians as a major injustice.
Polls conducted in several Arab countries show that, even if the leaders are ready to normalize relations with Israel, the population remains largely opposed to this normalization until the Palestinian issue is resolved. According to a 2022 Arab Opinion Index survey, more than 80% of respondents in Arab countries consider the Palestinian cause to remain their top regional political concern, despite agreements signed by their governments.
This disconnect between political elites and Arab populations is an additional obstacle for Netanyahu in his attempt to maintain a regional alliance against Iran while marginalizing the Palestinian issue. Even if the Arab states have normalized their relations with Israel, the lack of progress on the Palestinian issue risks weakening these alliances in the long term.
Netanyahu and the sabotage of ceasefire initiatives: Escalation to a wider conflict
In recent months, Netanyahu has consciously sabotaged several ceasefire initiatives, first in Gaza and then in Lebanon, reinforcing a military and verbal escalation against Iran. As the international community tried to find diplomatic solutions to ease rising tensions in the region, Netanyahu rejected or circumvented efforts for a truce, preferring instead escalate hostilities. In Gaza, ceasefire attempts proposed by international mediators, including Egypt and the United Nations, have been systematically rebuffed by the Israeli government, intensifying airstrikes and military operations on the ground.
This escalation then spread to Lebanon, where Israel also ignored calls for de-escalation, opting instead for targeted attacks on Hezbollah positions. Simultaneously, Netanyahu has begun a series of provocative actions against Iran, including the alleged assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, a senior Hamas leader, during a visit to Tehran. This action, although not officially claimed, was widely attributed to Israeli services and exacerbated the already high tensions between Israel and Iran.
At the same time, Israel attacked the Iranian consulate in Damascus, an attack seen as a direct warning to Iran and its allies in Syria. These actions have been accompanied by an intensification of Netanyahu’s rhetoric at the UN, where he said in his September 2024 speech that Israel will bring « freedom » to the Iranian people, a statement interpreted as an explicit threat of military intervention.
More ominously, it was during this period that Netanyahu, then in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, reportedly agreed to the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Yet Nasrallah had recently agreed to a ceasefire initiative jointly proposed by France and the United States, based on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which calls for a cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. This assassination clearly shows Netanyahu’s willingness to torpedo any attempt at peace, in the same way he did in Gaza, by systematically killing any international initiative to establish a ceasefire. The attack not only further destabilized Lebanon, but it also escalated hostilities with Iran, increasing the risk of a wider war in the region.
Israel: The High Costs of Ongoing Conflict
The consequences of these strategic decisions are not only military, but also economic and political. Indeed, the protracted conflict weighs heavily on the Israeli economy, particularly through the high costs of military operations and defense. Moreover, Israel is increasingly isolated on the international stage because of its refusal to accept peace and ceasefire initiatives.
This sense of isolation was dramatically manifested at the last United Nations General Assembly in September 2024, when many international delegations walked out of the room in protest just as Netanyahu began his speech. Among the countries that left the assembly were delegations from African, Latin American, European, and Arab countries. This symbolic move reflects growing discontent with Israeli actions, especially on the Palestinian issue, which continues to be a thorn in Israel’s relations with the international community.
Since October 7, 2023, several countries have also officially recognized the State of Palestine, further increasing diplomatic pressure on Israel. These countries include Sweden, Norway, Ireland, Chile, Mexico and Japan. The recognitions come amid growing international support for the Palestinian cause, further highlighting Israel’s isolation on the world stage.
In addition, Israeli actions, including targeted strikes against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza, have attracted the attention of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Investigations have been opened for potential war crimes, and arrest warrants could be issued for Israeli officials. Although Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the prospect of international prosecution poses a serious threat to Netanyahu and other senior Israeli government officials, further deepening their diplomatic isolation.
The Biden administration and the debate over arming Israel
In this context of growing international tensions, the Biden administration has tried to
to take steps to moderate Israel’s actions. In particular, Biden has sought to establish a moratorium on arms supplies to Israel, in response to Israeli strikes on Gaza and mounting international criticism over the Jewish state’s disproportionate use of force. However, this move was quickly countered by the US Congress, under the influence of AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbies.
Despite the Biden administration’s attempts to limit arms transfers, Congress passed a resolution forcing the executive branch to continue arms deliveries to Israel in the context of the conflict with Gaza. These weapons included bunker-busting bombs, used to target tunnels and underground infrastructure, but also deployed in civilian areas, in violation of international conventions and the laws of war. These extremely destructive weapons may have been used in the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, triggering international criticism of the escalation of the conflict and the use of indiscriminate weapons in densely populated areas.
The political consequences for the Biden administration have been significant. Internationally, the United States has seen its image as a mediator weakened, with its unconditional support for Israel seen as an obstacle to peace in the region. Moreover, within the Democratic Party, tensions have increased between the progressive wing, which is demanding a more balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the moderates, who are more traditional in their support for Israel. This internal fracture threatens to weaken the party’s cohesion in the run-up to the next elections, where US foreign policy could become a central topic of debate, especially in the face of an international community increasingly critical of the US position on the conflict.
Netanyahu’s ties to AIPAC and the Republicans
To shore up his strategy, Netanyahu has sought unconditional support from the United States, a goal made possible by his ties to AIPAC and American neoconservatives. As ambassador to the UN, he forged close relations with AIPAC, one of the most influential lobbies in Washington, to ensure that American policy toward Israel remained stable, regardless of which party was in power.
AIPAC, although officially bipartisan, has often shown a particular affinity with the Republican Party, and especially with the neoconservative wing of the latter. The neoconservatives, who advocated an interventionist American foreign policy, saw Israel as a key ally in reshaping the Middle East according to their strategic interests. Their theories, widely popularized in political circles and think tanks such as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), were based on the idea of a « new order in the Middle East, » one in which states hostile to Israel and the United States, such as Iran, would be overthrown.
Netanyahu has been able to rely on these theories to promote his own vision. The neoconservatives’ strategy, adopted in part by the Bush administration after the attacks of September 11, 2001, was based on a Manichean division of the world into « axes of good and evil. » This dichotomy, popularized by George W. Bush in his speeches, echoed Netanyahu’s vision of Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah as embodiments of evil, against which it was imperative to fight.
In 2006, this vision took on a new dimension with the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Neoconservative think tanks saw this war as a testing ground for reshaping the regional geopolitical order. Figures such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, two influential neoconservative theorists, saw the defeat of Hezbollah and the weakening of Syria and Iran as necessary steps for the stability of the region and for Israel’s security. Netanyahu fully embraced this vision, which he still sees as a central element of his foreign policy.
Confrontation with Iran: A Strategic Obsession
Iran has always been at the heart of Netanyahu’s strategy. In his mind, the Islamic Republic poses the greatest existential threat to Israel. Since his first term in office in 1996, Netanyahu has worked to convince the international community that Iran, with its nuclear program, is a danger not only to Israel, but to global stability. He has multiplied his warnings, particularly during his speeches at the UN, where he has often used dramatic language to highlight the Iranian peril.
In 2012, Netanyahu brandished a caricature of a bomb during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, an image that symbolized the urgency of halting Iran’s nuclear program. This obsession with Iran has been widely shared by American neoconservatives and supported by AIPAC, which has waged an intensive campaign against the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. For Netanyahu, the deal represented a « capitulation » to a regime he saw as implacably hostile to Israel.
AIPAC actively contributed to the cancellation of the deal under President Donald Trump in 2018, a major victory for Netanyahu. This strategic alliance has allowed Israel to maintain constant pressure on Iran, and to prepare for a possible military confrontation, a scenario that Netanyahu has never ruled out.
The neoconservative vision of a New Order in the Middle East
The idea of a new order in the Middle East is not just a theory championed by Netanyahu and his neoconservative allies. It is a geopolitical project aimed at redefining borders and powers in the region to make them more compatible with American and Israeli interests. The neoconservatives saw the authoritarian regimes in the region, such as Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, as obstacles to lasting peace and regional stability.
However, this vision of a new order did not remain theoretical. From 2003, with the invasion of Iraq by the United States, this strategy was implemented. But instead of stabilizing the region, it has led to its fragmentation. Today, in the light of Israeli and neoconservative ambitions, Iraq and Syria are divided into multiple zones of influence controlled by often rival forces.
Iraq : The American invasion in 2003 and the fall of Saddam Hussein led to the collapse of the Iraqi state, which gave way to a fractured country. Since then, Iraq has been divided into three main areas of influence: the Kurds in the north, the Shiites in the south supported by Iran, and a central Sunni area where Daesh has long exercised brutal domination. The central government in Baghdad is struggling to maintain its authority over the entire territory, and the future of Iraqi national unity remains uncertain.
Syria : The civil war that broke out in 2011 fragmented Syria into several competing entities. Today, the regime of Bashar al-Assad, backed by Russia and Iran, controls much of the territory, but significant areas remain in the hands of the Kurds in the northeast, as well as Turkish-backed rebel groups in the northwest. Jihadist forces, although largely weakened, also retain a residual presence in some areas. This fragmentation makes any return to a unified Syria extremely unlikely in the short or medium term.
These internal divisions, both in Syria and Iraq, reflect the failure of neoconservative ambitions for regional stabilization and leave these countries vulnerable to external influences, including those of Iran and Turkey. For Netanyahu, this situation is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, the disintegration of these countries weakens his enemies; on the other, it complicates the management of cross-border threats and increases the risk of new proximity wars.
Scenarios for Lebanon: Four Uncertain Paths
With this neoconservative vision and Netanyahu’s strategy in the background, the scenarios for Lebanon’s future are becoming clearer, though still uncertain. Lebanon, caught in the grip of Israeli and Iranian geopolitical ambitions, faces several possible paths, each with its own implications.
Scenario 1: Hezbollah’s victory
A Hezbollah victory in the current context would strengthen Iranian influence in Lebanon and the region, consolidating the Shiite axis. Hezbollah, with its popular and military support, would become the main Lebanese political actor
, ruling out any possibility of Palestinian settlement in Lebanon. However, this victory would also increase Lebanon’s international isolation and strengthen sanctions against it, plunging the country into an even deeper economic crisis.
Scenario 2: Israel’s victory
In this scenario, Israel would manage to militarily neutralize Hezbollah, potentially occupying southern Lebanon again. Such a victory would weaken Iran, but risk provoking further radicalization in the region, while making Lebanon even more unstable. Israel could find itself caught in a new war of occupation, reminiscent of the two decades of occupation between 1982 and 2000, a period marked by relentless conflict and significant loss of life.
Scenario 3: The Civil War
Another possibility is the outbreak of a civil war in Lebanon, fanned by the weakening of Hezbollah due to internal strife after Nasrallah’s demise or an internal fracture within the movement. This scenario is reminiscent of the internal conflicts that took place after the death of Bashir Gemayel, when the Lebanese Forces were divided. A civil war in Lebanon could spread to other communal factions, creating a climate of widespread violence.
Scenario 4: The status quo
Finally, the status quo scenario consists of maintaining the current balances, with sporadic confrontations between Hezbollah and Israel, but without either side achieving a decisive victory. This scenario may be the least destructive in the short term, but it does not provide a lasting solution to the underlying tensions. Lebanon would continue to suffer from political and economic instability, while tensions between Israel, Iran, and their allies would persist.
Conclusion: A region in the midst of reconfiguration
Netanyahu’s strategy, influenced by neoconservative theories and AIPAC support, helped shape the Middle East as it is today, a region in turmoil. His vision, marked by a division between good and evil, has resonated in American political circles, reinforcing the idea that reshaping the Middle East is necessary to ensure the security of Israel and the United States.
However, these ambitions have also led to chronic instability, with endless conflicts and wars. Lebanon, at the centre of these geopolitical ambitions, now faces an uncertain future, with scenarios that, each in their own way, risk prolonging this instability. As the world watches, the choices of Netanyahu and the international powers continue to shape the fate of Lebanon and the entire region, for better or worse.
Sources:
- « Netanyahu and the UN: Iran and the Middle East Conflict », The Jerusalem Post, 2024.
- « Arab Opinion Index 2022: Normalization with Israel and Palestine », Arab Center for Research & Policy Studies.
- « China Brokers Historic Saudi-Iran Rapprochement », Al Jazeera, 2023.
- « Israeli Strikes and Assassinations: Escalating the Conflict with Iran », The Guardian, 2024.
- « China’s Economic Stakes in Iran’s Oil Infrastructure », Financial Times, 2024.
- « ICC Arrest Warrants and International Pressure, » The New York Times, 2024.
- « Recognition of the State of Palestine: the list of countries since October 2023 », Le Monde, 2024.
- « Biden’s Arms Moratorium Blocked by Congress: Weapons to Israel », The Washington Post, 2024.
