Gadeer Kamal-Mreeh, director of Eastern Mediterranean Affairs at the Middle East Forum and founder of GKM Global Consulting, spoke to a July 7 Middle East Forum Podcast (video). The following summarizes her comments:
Israel’s “war of necessity” was launched amid the national trauma of October 7. Its objective was to dismantle the Islamic Republic of Iran’s “ring of fire” meant to encircle and destroy the Jewish state through the mullahs’ proxies. The ayatollahs boasted of de facto control over four capitals: Beirut, Lebanon, though Hezbollah; Damascus, Syria, through militias; Sanaa, Yemen, through the Houthis; and Baghdad, Iraq, through Iraqi militias. Instead of destroying Israel, the war has resulted in a historic period of “constructive chaos” in which the Middle East is reshaping itself. The Israel-Iran war reflects Jerusalem’s “zero trust doctrine”—a hard-learned lesson whereby the Jewish state no longer places its security in the hands of any international guarantor.
Israel’s objective was to dismantle the Islamic Republic of Iran’s “ring of fire” meant to encircle and destroy the Jewish state through the mullahs’ proxies.
Repeated failures began when Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, only to see Hezbollah become a threat to Israel’s northern border. Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 saw regional players and international organizations pour massive funds into the strip. Rather than invest in human capital or moderate its governance, the Hamas leadership spent those billions on building an underground terrorist infrastructure that was ignored or aided by those same international bodies.
In contrast to the domestic chaos that roiled Israel’s pre-October 7 political landscape, the Islamic regime’s “existential threat” focused both the Israeli government and its people on preparing for a war that was almost two decades in the making. Operation Rising Lion, launched to “find a permanent solution” to the Iranian regime’s threat of annihilating the Jewish state, reignited national pride, even as Israel’s citizens were reconciled to the likelihood “that the Islamic regime would launch 600 to 1,000 missiles in the first hour.”
Prior to the Islamic regime’s 1979 takeover of Iran, Israel was an ally and, sharing intelligence and maintaining extensive military and economic ties. In the decades since, Israel lulled itself into a deluded conception that it was “untouchable,” and that the payoff of “Qatari cash suitcases” had moderated Hamas. A mistaken sense of deterrence took hold, despite telltale signs that Iran had been fully engaged in its nuclear weapons project since 1992.
That all changed when the regime’s main nuclear sites were struck after Jerusalem and Washington acted in tandem to pull off a “brilliant deception.” Israel had neutered Hezbollah, was actively degrading Hamas in the Gaza war, and took the fight to the Islamic regime’s military sites by gaining air superiority over the country. Following these successes, the Trump administration used “coercive diplomacy” with Tehran while fully prepared to exercise the military option. In light of the mullahs’ intransigence, the U.S. dispatched its B-2 bombers to deliver the only bombs capable of reaching the regime’s buried nuclear sites.
The 12-day war concluded after Israel re-established deterrence by degrading Iran’s nuclear threat, destroying over fifty percent of the regime’s ballistic missile capabilities, and eliminating senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders. While regime change would benefit not only Israel, but the entire region, “the Middle East has taught us that the opposite of autocracy is not always a democracy.” Historical memory serves as an instructive reminder, considering the resulting chaos after the fall of regimes in Libya, Yemen, and Syria.
The U.S. has high hopes for stabilization in the Middle East region and beyond, aiming for more countries to normalize ties with Israel via the Abraham Accords birthed during Trump’s first term.
The Iranian regime remains in power, and the Trump administration’s announcement that it will support another Israeli strike against the regime if it renews its nuclear program is not a foregone conclusion. In the meantime, as the Mideast rebuilds itself, the regional changes raise the prospect of translating Israel’s military achievements into political ones. It is still early, but Israel and Syria could well produce a “first phase security agreement” that may later be followed by economic ties and ultimately normalization. In addition, “we have very positive signals from Lebanon,” whose new president, Joseph Aoun, is restraining Hezbollah’s influence.
The U.S. has high hopes for stabilization in the Middle East region and beyond, aiming for more countries to normalize ties with Israel via the Abraham Accords birthed during Trump’s first term. Conversations with Azerbaijan, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia have put these countries in play.
At present, there are three areas with outcomes still undetermined: what will happen in Iran, who will govern Gaza the day after, and whether Prime Minister Netanyahu will successfully stabilize Israel’s political arena. “Everything is so intense, and we are witnessing dramatic, rapid developments in the Middle East” that reflect Israel’s domestic, regional, and global policies.
Yahya Sinwar’s “fatal mistake” in unleashing Hamas’s barbarism without coordinating with his allies, “ironically, tragically” caused a domino effect during the past two years. The trauma and losses endured “from that deadly attack” on October 7 has led the Jewish state to a “Ben-Gurionic” vision “of changing the entire Middle East for our interests.”
