Preparing for the post-Iran war era

The Middle East stands at a dangerous inflection point. The confrontation involving Iran, Israel and the US is not merely another episode in a long cycle of regional tensions — it is a strategic stress test that has exposed vulnerabilities, recalibrated deterrence and forced all actors to confront an uncomfortable reality: the regional order is fragile and its future will not wait for indecision.

Crucially, the conflict has also underscored that the Iranian agenda — rooted in regional expansion, proxy warfare and strategic penetration into Arab arenas — is no less dangerous to Arab security and stability than the Israeli one. Both trajectories, though different in method, ultimately converge in undermining Arab sovereignty, eroding state institutions and fragmenting the region into competing spheres of influence.

What distinguishes this moment is not simply the scale of confrontation but the exposure of strategic ceilings. For years, Israel has cultivated an image of overwhelming military superiority, projecting an aura of deterrence that discouraged direct confrontation. Yet the dynamics of the Iran war have complicated that narrative.

The assumption of invincibility has been shaken because the conflict has revealed the structural limits of all actors’ power. Geography remains a decisive constraint. A state with limited territorial depth and high population density cannot sustain prolonged, multifront warfare without facing severe economic, military and societal strain.

What distinguishes this moment is not simply the scale of confrontation but the exposure of strategic ceilings

Hani Hazaimeh

At the same time, Iran’s regional approach has also been laid bare. Its reliance on asymmetric warfare, proxy militias and indirect escalation has allowed it to extend influence across multiple Arab theaters without engaging in full-scale conventional war. Yet this model, while tactically effective, carries long-term strategic risks. It destabilizes fragile states, fuels sectarian divisions and creates permanent zones of tension that ultimately threaten the broader regional order, including Iran’s own strategic environment.

At the center of Israel’s current trajectory stands Benjamin Netanyahu, a warmonger whose political survival has long been intertwined with a doctrine of perpetual crisis. Netanyahu has mastered the politics of fear, repeatedly framing Israel as a nation under existential threat and positioning himself as its indispensable guardian. But the post-Iran war landscape may prove less forgiving.

Domestically, Netanyahu faces mounting pressure. The Israeli public, already fatigued by years of political paralysis and repeated elections, is increasingly divided over the cost of continuous confrontation. Economic strain, security anxieties and growing distrust in political leadership are converging in ways that could reshape the country’s internal political map. In such a climate, the temptation to open new fronts — whether in Gaza or Lebanon — becomes not merely a military calculation but a political survival tactic. War, in this context, is no longer solely about national security; it becomes a tool for extending political longevity.

Yet this approach is inherently unsustainable. Escalation for political survival deepens instability, invites retaliation and accelerates the erosion of deterrence rather than reinforcing it. It also risks miscalculation in an increasingly interconnected conflict environment, where local escalations can rapidly expand into regional confrontations. Israeli society must confront a fundamental question: Can lasting security be achieved under leadership that depends on perpetual crisis to maintain relevance?

If Israelis genuinely seek peace — and there are clear segments within society that do — the path forward lies not in further militarization but in political recalibration. Leadership that prioritizes diplomacy over domination and coexistence over coercion is not a sign of weakness but a prerequisite for sustainable security. The continuation of settlement expansion, periodic military campaigns and the marginalization of political solutions will only entrench cycles of violence rather than resolve them.

The conflict has once again demonstrated that regional security cannot only be outsourced to external powers

Hani Hazaimeh

For the Arab world, the implications of this war are even more profound. The conflict has once again demonstrated that regional security cannot only be outsourced to external powers, nor can it be managed through fragmented national strategies. The absence of a unified Arab security framework has created strategic vacuums that external actors — both regional and international — have repeatedly exploited.

This is where the concept of a joint Arab defense architecture becomes critical. Whether under the framework of a revitalized Peninsula Shield or a broader “Arab Shield,” the need for structured, institutionalized military cooperation is no longer theoretical — it is urgent. Such a framework, bringing together key states like the Gulf countries, Jordan and a stabilizing Syria, could fundamentally reshape the region’s security equation.

However, the effectiveness of such an alliance will depend on more than military coordination. It will require political alignment, intelligence integration and economic interdependence. A credible deterrence posture is built not only on capabilities but on cohesion and clarity of purpose. Without these elements, any alliance risks remaining symbolic rather than operational.

Equally important is the need to redefine the concept of security itself. Security is no longer limited to territorial defense; it encompasses economic resilience, energy security, cyber capabilities and social stability. The Arab region must adopt a comprehensive security doctrine that addresses both traditional and nontraditional threats, including the destabilizing effects of proxy conflicts and ideological polarization.

The post-Iran war era will not be defined solely by battlefield outcomes but by strategic adaptation. For Israel, this means confronting the internal contradictions of its leadership and reassessing its reliance on force as a primary instrument of policy. For Iran, it requires reconsidering the long-term costs of expansion through proxies and the sustainability of its regional posture. For Arab states, it demands a transition from reactive policies to proactive, coordinated strategies.

The cost of inaction is already visible — in the devastation of Gaza, the fragility of Lebanon and the broader erosion of regional stability. These are not isolated crises; they are interconnected symptoms of an unbalanced regional order.

• Hani Hazaimeh is a senior editor based in Amman. X: @hanihazaimeh