4/7 – Geopolitics News & Analysis

In the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack that claimed over 1,100 Israeli lives and saw 250 hostages taken. In response, Israel launched an extensive military campaign that has since reshaped the strategic landscape of the region. Initially framed as a mission of deterrence and hostage recovery, the operation has expanded far beyond Gaza and morphed into a broader doctrine of permanent occupation, regional dominance, and unilateral action. The March 18 resumption of Israel’s offensive, following a brief ceasefire, marks a new phase—one characterized not just by military escalation but by territorial ambitions and an increasingly authoritarian domestic turn.

Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, announced the renewed offensive would aim to seize large swathes of Gaza and designate them as Israeli-controlled “security zones.” The stated goals are twofold: to increase pressure on Hamas to release the remaining hostages and to eradicate the group’s remaining infrastructure. Lieutenant-General Eyal Zamir, the new IDF chief, signaled a more aggressive approach, with plans to depopulate areas of Gaza, tighten sieges, and maintain indefinite control over parts of the enclave.

The military objectives coincide with a mounting civilian toll. Since the war resumed, over 50,000 Palestinians have reportedly died. Israel’s shift from precision operations to broader territorial control signals a departure from past tactics, which favored short-term military strikes and buffer zones over occupation. Now, the IDF appears prepared to govern territory—possibly permanently—raising the specter of an enduring and destabilizing military presence in Gaza.

In parallel, Israel has intensified operations in the West Bank, conducting its largest military campaign there in decades. More than 40,000 Palestinians have been displaced from refugee camps in the north. Far-right factions within the Israeli government have used the moment to push settlement expansion. On March 23, the security cabinet voted to legitimize 13 unauthorized outposts, a move that technically violates international law but aligns with a broader vision of annexation.

With support from key allies in the Knesset and emboldened by American political dynamics, the Israeli right aims to make the two-state solution untenable by fragmenting Palestinian territory beyond repair. Some officials are openly lobbying for U.S. support to formally annex all or parts of the West Bank, a policy that would all but extinguish prospects for Palestinian statehood.

The regional map is also being redrawn. Israel has occupied a significant stretch of Syrian territory, including strategic locations such as Mount Hermon in the Golan Heights. Its overtures to the Druze population in southern Syria suggest a long-term plan to fracture the country into ethnic cantons, potentially mirroring Lebanon’s sectarian governance model. Meanwhile, Israel continues to hold five hilltops in southern Lebanon, despite pledging to withdraw under the terms of its ceasefire with Hezbollah.

A recent firefight in southern Syria, followed by Israeli airstrikes, further illustrates the volatile nature of these occupations. While Israel justifies its actions as preemptive defense, critics argue that expanding military presence beyond its borders risks inciting the very conflicts it claims to prevent.

Perhaps the most consequential flashpoint lies to the east. Israel has long viewed Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an existential threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has campaigned vigorously to win American backing for a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. U.S. intelligence sources believe such an attack could come within six months.

The Trump administration appears divided. While many in Washington oppose a renewed military engagement in Iran, others, including Trump’s Middle East envoy, suggest that a new, quick-fix agreement could be reached without replicating the drawn-out 2015 JCPOA. Still, if talks stall or break down, the stage may be set for a coordinated Israeli-American assault on Iran—a move that could plunge the entire region into chaos.

Internal Dissent and Democratic Decay

Domestically, Netanyahu’s aggressive policies have deepened fissures within Israeli society. His decision to break the Gaza ceasefire in March 2024 secured political survival—far-right coalition partner Itamar Ben-Gvir rejoined the government, allowing Netanyahu to pass the national budget and avoid early elections. But it came at a cost: public trust has eroded sharply.

Netanyahu is also facing legal scrutiny. He remains on trial for corruption and has worked to sideline key figures in the judicial system, including attempts to dismiss the head of Israel’s domestic intelligence agency and the attorney general overseeing his case. These moves have sparked widespread protests and fueled accusations that the prime minister is manipulating national security for personal and political gain.

Polls show a steep decline in public confidence. Where over half of Israeli Jews once believed the country was on the right track, now just 11% do. Citizens are being asked to make massive sacrifices—long military tours, increased taxes, and slashed public services—while Netanyahu’s allies receive billions in coalition funds for sectarian projects. Many reservists are refusing deployment orders, and anger over the government’s abandonment of ceasefire negotiations and the remaining hostages is growing.

The Cost of Regional Hegemony

Israel’s bid for regional dominance—through occupation, military strikes, and annexation—has come with immense costs. The defense budget has ballooned by 75%, the public debt has climbed, and burnout is spreading through the military ranks. Beyond the economic and military toll, Israel’s international standing is under strain. An arrest warrant for Netanyahu from the International Criminal Court looms, though allies like Hungary have pledged not to enforce it.

Regionally, Israel’s once-isolated position has shifted thanks to the Abraham Accords, but even those ties remain fragile. Arab regimes have largely chosen not to intervene despite public anger, but that posture may not last if civilian casualties continue to rise or if Israel moves to formally annex additional territory.

In the U.S., Trump has so far aligned himself closely with Netanyahu, but history suggests that could change. The president is known for erratic policy shifts and disdain for costly foreign entanglements. Support for Israel’s campaign may falter if it becomes too expensive, too drawn out, or too unpopular among American voters.

Analysis:

Netanyahu’s long-held assertion that Israel must “live by the sword” has now hardened into doctrine. Gone are the days of short, tactical operations designed to deter enemies. What has emerged is a sprawling, multipronged campaign of conquest and control—fueled by trauma, ideology, and political survival in a tumultuous region.

But indefinite war carries consequences beyond the battlefield. It erodes institutions, drains national morale, and sows division. Netanyahu may claim victories in Gaza or against the International Criminal Court, but the deeper war—against Israeli democracy, unity, and legitimacy—may be one his government is already losing.

Hegemony, after all, is not only about power projection. It requires a vision for the future, one rooted in stability, legitimacy, and moral clarity. At present, Israel’s leadership appears to be sacrificing all three in pursuit of territorial gain and personal preservation.