As tensions rise, Israel faces critical decisions about retaliating against Iran’s aggression while managing the risk of broader conflict.

The Iranian missile attack on Israel this week has heightened the stakes in an already volatile region. Iran’s launch of approximately 200 ballistic missiles, some targeting key strategic areas like the Dimona nuclear facility, marks a serious escalation in its conflict with Israel. Although most of the missiles were intercepted by Israel’s advanced defense systems, the implications of this brazen act extend far beyond immediate military concerns.

For Israel, the attack represents not only a direct threat but a calculated effort by Tehran to provoke panic and incite a larger confrontation. Iranian leaders, embattled by the recent weakening of their regional alliances and proxies, appear to be using aggression as a means to reassert their influence. The assassinations of key figures, such as Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut, have left Iran scrambling to maintain its foothold in the region.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been unequivocal in his warning that Iran’s leadership has made a “big mistake” and will face consequences. Israel now confronts critical choices about how to respond. The potential targets for retaliation are clear: Iran’s nuclear facilities or its oil infrastructure, both of which are central to the regime’s survival. A strike on these would deal a severe blow to Iran’s economy and strategic capabilities, but it carries significant risks.

Iran’s economy is deeply reliant on oil and gas exports, and a strike on its oil facilities would likely have a crippling effect. However, such a move risks igniting a broader regional conflict. Israel must balance its need to restore deterrence with concerns about triggering a large-scale war that could draw in U.S. forces and further destabilize the Middle East.

U.S. Involvement and Constraints

While the United States has strongly supported Israel’s right to defend itself, Washington remains wary of any actions that could spark an uncontrollable escalation. President Joe Biden has emphasized U.S. military support for Israel, but both American and Israeli interests align in avoiding a full-scale conflict that could involve Iran’s nuclear program. An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities might provoke Tehran into accelerating its nuclear ambitions, which would escalate the current conflict into a far more dangerous confrontation.

Furthermore, Israel’s April response to a previous missile attack by Iran left questions about Iran’s Russian-made S-300 aerial defense systems, particularly their effectiveness in protecting sensitive sites like the Natanz nuclear facility. Any future Israeli strike must consider how to neutralize these defenses while minimizing regional fallout.

Iran’s regional power is under pressure, as its proxy networks face a series of setbacks. The loss of key Hezbollah and Hamas leaders has weakened Tehran’s ability to project power through these groups. The recent Israeli strike on Houthi-controlled Hodeidah in Yemen suggests that Israel is expanding its efforts to dismantle Iranian influence beyond its immediate borders. Tehran’s leadership, sensing its eroding dominance, has chosen to strike back directly, but this could prove to be a strategic miscalculation.

Calculated Retaliation

Israel’s response to the missile attack is likely to be measured, calculated, and focused on reaffirming its deterrence. While a strike on Iran’s nuclear or oil infrastructure is possible, such a move would need to align with broader U.S. strategic objectives. Netanyahu’s government is under pressure to respond forcefully, but a reckless escalation could have catastrophic consequences.

In this delicate balancing act, Israel is poised to retaliate, but the nature of its response will be shaped by the larger goal of avoiding a regional conflagration while addressing the immediate threat posed by Iran’s aggression.

As the skies over Israel once again light up with missile fire, the source is unmistakable: the Islamic Republic of Iran. In what has become a recurring pattern, Iran has launched a barrage of missiles at Israeli cities and military targets, forcing civilians into bomb shelters and placing immense pressure on Israel’s multi-layered missile defense systems. These systems, impressive in their effectiveness, cannot guarantee complete safety—particularly if Iran’s missiles ever carry non-conventional warheads.

This latest attack, surpassing a previous salvo of 300 missiles six months ago, serves as a stark reminder of the fundamental threat posed by the Iranian regime under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His relentless enmity toward Israel is deeply rooted in ideology, impervious to diplomacy or negotiation. As Khamenei nears the end of his life, his drive to destroy Israel intensifies, leaving little room for conventional diplomacy.

For years, arguments against direct military intervention in Iran have centered on the need for caution and restraint. However, the calculus has changed. Iran’s leadership, particularly Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), remains the architect of regional instability, and their ambitions increasingly threaten not only Israel but global security.

While the Iranian people should not be seen as adversaries—many of them are victims of the same oppressive regime—military action against the Islamic Republic’s leadership and military infrastructure has become a necessity. A strategic campaign to dismantle the regime’s military capabilities, particularly its air bases, missile batteries, and naval power, is imperative. This approach should be carefully calibrated to avoid unnecessary civilian harm, but it must also be decisive.

Israel, with the backing of its regional and Western allies, should focus on systematically degrading Iran’s military infrastructure. This means targeting naval assets, missile launch sites, and the IRGC’s sprawling network. The aim would be to incapacitate the regime’s ability to wage war without embarking on a ground invasion—a strategic decision rooted in the belief that Iran, unlike Iraq, does not require occupation to facilitate political change.

Any military strategy targeting the Islamic Republic must be clear about its purpose: dismantling the regime, not punishing the Iranian people. Iran’s population is distinct in its historical and cultural legacy, with a rich tradition of democratic aspirations. The Woman, Life, Freedom movement and the Green Movement before it have shown the world that the Iranian people have long sought to free themselves from theocratic tyranny.

By removing the regime’s leadership and crippling its military power, external forces could open the door for Iranians to pursue genuine self-determination. The fall of the Islamic Republic could provide a historic opportunity for Iranians to reclaim their political future, as their ancestors sought to do in the Constitutional Revolution over a century ago.

While military action might be necessary, it is only part of the solution. The international community, led by the United States and its allies, must simultaneously prepare for the economic and diplomatic rebuilding of Iran post-regime. A well-coordinated Marshall Plan for Iran could provide the resources necessary for reconstruction, offering a future beyond theocratic rule. Such a plan should aim at stabilizing the economy, rebuilding infrastructure, and supporting a transition toward democracy.

It is critical to understand that the fall of the Islamic Republic would not signal the end of instability in Iran. Without a coherent international strategy, the IRGC or other factions could exploit the chaos, much as they have done in the past, to maintain their grip on power. This makes it imperative that any military strikes be accompanied by clear diplomatic efforts aimed at ensuring a smooth political transition.

Targeting Khamenei and the IRGC leadership is central to dismantling the regime. Khamenei, nearing the end of his reign, represents the ideological heart of the regime’s anti-Israel stance. While his removal is necessary, attention must also be given to his potential successors—those within his inner circle who share his vision of regional dominance through military aggression. Any successor with similar ambitions must be seen as a legitimate target.

A targeted campaign that includes the decapitation of the IRGC’s leadership is crucial. The IRGC, with its deep involvement in the Iranian economy and military, represents the regime’s backbone. Without neutralizing its influence, the Islamic Republic’s power structure could simply reconstitute itself, allowing the cycle of violence to continue.

For the U.S. and its Western allies, the decision to support this strategy offers a chance to reshape the region for the better. President Joe Biden, in particular, faces a defining choice. His administration can either continue down the path of cautious engagement with Iran, risking further destabilization, or it can seize the opportunity to support meaningful regime change in Tehran.

If successful, dismantling the Islamic Republic could provide lasting security for Israel and shift the balance of power in the Middle East. The benefits would extend beyond Israel’s borders, offering hope to millions of Iranians who have suffered under the regime’s repressive rule. For Biden, this could be the legacy of a president who restored a semblance of order and freedom to a region long beset by tyranny and violence.

The path forward requires courage and clarity of purpose. Israel, with the support of its allies, must act decisively to end the Islamic Republic’s threat once and for all. This does not mean punishing the Iranian people but rather freeing them from the grip of a regime that has caused untold suffering both at home and abroad. By neutralizing Khamenei and his inner circle, Israel and the West can help Iran’s people build a future grounded in peace, security, and democracy.

Israel Prepares for a Protracted Conflict as Third Lebanon War Escalates

The ongoing clashes between Israeli forces and Hezbollah along the Israel-Lebanon border mark a significant escalation in a decades-long conflict. This marks Israel’s third major engagement with Hezbollah, following the 2006 war and the initial clashes in the 1980s. The latest confrontation raises concerns about a prolonged war, its regional implications, and the strain it places on Israel’s military and society.

A History of Israel and Hezbollah

Hezbollah was formed in response to Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, originally aimed at uprooting the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). However, Israel soon faced a new enemy in Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed militia dedicated to Israel’s destruction. For nearly two decades, Israeli forces occupied a strip of southern Lebanon, battling Hezbollah fighters in what became a grueling and costly campaign. In 2006, Israel invaded Lebanon again following Hezbollah’s abduction of two Israeli soldiers, but the war ended inconclusively, with Hezbollah remaining intact and continuing its operations.

Since then, Hezbollah has become Iran’s most powerful proxy in the region, boasting an estimated force of up to 100,000 fighters and hundreds of thousands of rockets capable of reaching nearly all of Israel. Despite frequent Israeli airstrikes targeting Hezbollah’s weapon shipments, the group has remained entrenched in southern Lebanon and expanded its influence, becoming a key player in Lebanon’s parliament and an active participant in Syria’s civil war.

The latest conflict reignited on October 8, 2023, just a day after Hamas launched an unprecedented invasion of Israel from Gaza. Hezbollah, in solidarity with Hamas, began shelling northern Israel, initiating a near-daily exchange of missiles and airstrikes. Over the past year, Israel has killed several top Hezbollah leaders, culminating in the assassination of the group’s long-time leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

Nasrallah’s death has been a significant blow to Hezbollah, with some analysts suggesting the group may be “operationally inert” for the foreseeable future. However, Hezbollah’s leadership insists it still has significant strength, and recent statements indicate they are prepared for a prolonged fight. The killing of Nasrallah has raised fears of a broader conflict involving Iran, Hezbollah’s main backer, which could escalate the war beyond the Israel-Lebanon border.

Preparing for a Ground Invasion

Israel’s military has been massing troops on the Lebanon border, signaling an impending ground invasion aimed at clearing Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Israeli forces have been preparing for months, conducting training exercises in anticipation of this very scenario. The goal is to push Hezbollah away from Israel’s northern towns, reducing the group’s ability to launch missile and rocket attacks. However, Lebanon’s mountainous terrain and Hezbollah’s deeply entrenched forces make this a formidable challenge. The group’s guerrilla tactics, honed over decades, could prolong the conflict and inflict heavy casualties on both sides.

As the fighting intensifies, tens of thousands of Israelis from the north have been evacuated, and many remain displaced, living in hotels or temporary shelters. Support for a harsher military response to Hezbollah has grown among the Israeli public, with a recent poll showing that nearly two-thirds of Israelis favor continued military action against Hezbollah, despite the potential for heavy losses. Hezbollah’s missile attacks have also caused significant civilian casualties in Israel, while hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes.

U.S. Involvement and Iranian Influence

The conflict comes at a critical moment for the Middle East, with the potential to destabilize the region further. The United States has been a steadfast ally of Israel, with President Biden backing the country’s military operations. However, the Biden administration has also been pushing for ceasefires in both Lebanon and Gaza, reflecting concerns about the potential for a broader regional war.

Iran’s role in the conflict cannot be understated. As Hezbollah’s primary sponsor, Iran has provided the group with funding, weapons, and political support for decades. If Iran chooses to retaliate for Nasrallah’s assassination, either directly or through its proxies in Iraq and Syria, the war could quickly spiral into a regional conflict, involving multiple fronts across the Middle East.

What Comes Next?

IDF approves Lebanon operation plans

As Israeli forces prepare for a possible ground operation in Lebanon, the country faces a range of difficult challenges. The war against Hezbollah will likely be long and costly, with potential consequences for Israel’s security, economy, and international standing. At the same time, Israel’s leadership appears determined to strike a decisive blow against Hezbollah, aiming to weaken the group to a point where it can no longer pose a significant threat.

For now, both sides seem prepared for a drawn-out conflict, with the possibility of further escalation. Should the war drag on, it could further strain Israel’s military and civilian resources, especially given the ongoing war in Gaza and the high number of reservists already called up. At the same time, Hezbollah’s ability to regroup and retaliate could make it difficult for Israel to achieve its long-term goals in Lebanon without sustained international support and diplomatic pressure.

The Third Lebanon War is just beginning, and its outcome remains uncertain.

Israel’s recent airstrikes on the Iranian-backed Houthi movement in Yemen, particularly the second round of strikes on September 29, highlight a critical moment in the broader regional conflict. The air raids targeted military installations, oil facilities, and other key Houthi infrastructure. These long-range operations, involving dozens of Israeli aircraft and mid-air refueling, mark a significant escalation in Israel’s efforts to neutralize the Houthi threat, which has launched several ballistic missile attacks on central Israel in recent weeks.

This analysis examines whether Israel’s efforts will effectively deter the Houthis and what the implications are for Israeli strategy and the wider regional balance.

Israel’s strikes on the Houthis serve two immediate objectives: sending a clear message to Iran and its proxies, and signaling Israel’s ability to project military power beyond its immediate borders. The Houthis, who have grown increasingly bold and technologically advanced, have been stockpiling long-range missiles and drones with Iranian assistance. This buildup has enabled them to target not only local adversaries like Saudi Arabia but also Israel, which they now view as a key player in the region’s power struggles.

The significance of these airstrikes extends beyond the immediate damage inflicted on Houthi infrastructure. Israel is demonstrating that it can conduct long-range precision strikes, utilizing intelligence, air superiority, and real-time operational training. This is not just about degrading the Houthis’ military capabilities; it’s about reinforcing Israel’s position as a major regional actor capable of reaching any adversary, regardless of distance.

However, while Israel’s strikes may achieve immediate tactical successes, the broader question remains: will these operations deter the Houthis from continuing their attacks on Israel?

One of the key challenges Israel faces in deterring the Houthis is the group’s resilience, combat experience, and substantial backing from Iran. Over the past decade, the Houthis have amassed an arsenal of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, making them a formidable non-state actor. Their recent missile strikes on Israel demonstrate both their boldness and their long-range capabilities.

Despite Israel’s airstrikes, the Houthis remain largely intact, with much of their military infrastructure untouched. The group has a long history of enduring external military interventions. During the Yemen Civil War, they successfully fought off Saudi-backed government forces and have shown they can withstand attacks from technologically superior adversaries.

Additionally, the Houthis benefit from Iran’s continued support. Tehran provides them with advanced weaponry, logistical aid, and financial backing. This support ensures that the Houthis will likely continue to pose a threat, even after suffering military setbacks from Israeli airstrikes. The relationship between Iran and the Houthis is symbiotic, with both parties benefiting from the instability their partnership creates in the region.

Israel’s long-range airstrikes against the Houthis highlight a broader strategic challenge that it has faced in other theaters, such as Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria. While Israel’s air power is unmatched in the region, its ability to completely neutralize asymmetric threats from groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and now the Houthis, has been limited.

Air power alone, particularly in distant theaters like Yemen, may not be sufficient to deter or degrade the Houthis’ capabilities. Unlike Gaza or southern Lebanon, where Israel has a significant advantage due to proximity, long-range operations in Yemen face logistical and strategic difficulties. The strikes are impressive in terms of precision and coordination, but the Houthis’ deep entrenchment and external support make them difficult to defeat solely through air campaigns.

The strikes on the Houthis also fit into Israel’s broader conflict with Iran. Tehran’s strategy of arming and supporting proxies across the Middle East—Hezbollah in Lebanon, militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen—is designed to keep Israel and its allies on the defensive. Iran’s objective is to stretch Israel’s military and intelligence resources across multiple fronts, from Lebanon to Gaza to Yemen.

By targeting the Houthis, Israel aims to send a message not only to the group itself but also to Iran. Israel is making clear that it will not tolerate Iranian-backed attacks on its territory, even if those attacks originate from distant Yemen. However, the long-term success of this strategy depends on Israel’s ability to consistently disrupt Iran’s supply lines and influence in the region.

Israel’s airstrikes against the Houthis serve as both a military operation and a strategic message to its adversaries in the region. However, deterring the Houthis will require more than just airpower. The group’s deep-rooted resilience, Iranian support, and experience in enduring external military interventions make them a difficult adversary to neutralize completely.

While the strikes may temporarily degrade the Houthis’ capabilities, their long-range missile stockpiles and operational boldness suggest that they will remain a significant threat. Israel’s broader challenge will be how to sustain long-range operations and counter Iran’s regional strategy without becoming bogged down in multiple fronts. The effectiveness of these airstrikes as a deterrent will ultimately depend on whether Israel can consistently disrupt Houthi operations and prevent further attacks on its territory.

In the short term, the Houthis are unlikely to be fully deterred by these airstrikes, and Israel will need to continue adapting its strategy to address the evolving nature of asymmetric warfare in the Middle East.

Addis Ababa emphasizes regional development goals while Somalia and Egypt express concerns over territorial and security implications.

Ethiopia’s recent agreement with Somaliland has drawn strong reactions from neighboring countries, particularly Somalia and Egypt, as it stirs debate over regional sovereignty, economic partnerships, and geopolitical stability. At the United Nations General Assembly, Ethiopian Foreign Minister Taye Atske-Selassie defended the pact, portraying it as a regional development initiative in line with Ethiopia’s broader goals of fostering growth in the Horn of Africa. However, his remarks were met with sharp criticisms from Somalia and Egypt, each highlighting different concerns about Ethiopia’s expanding regional footprint.

Ethiopia’s Defense: A Push for Regional Development

Ethiopia’s foreign minister, in his speech, characterized the memorandum of understanding with Somaliland as a legitimate and strategic effort aimed at shared prosperity. Addis Ababa views this deal as an extension of its economic goals, especially as a landlocked country seeking greater access to regional maritime trade routes. According to Taye, the agreement does not infringe on Somalia’s territorial integrity but is in line with ongoing efforts to enhance regional cooperation and development.

In stressing the importance of unity against common threats, particularly terrorism, Ethiopia appealed to Somalia to prioritize collective security concerns over territorial disputes. Ethiopia’s role in supporting anti-terrorism operations in Somalia, particularly against al-Shabaab, was also highlighted as evidence of its commitment to regional stability.

Somalia’s Rebuttal: Accusations of Territorial Violation

In a firm counterpoint, Somalia’s Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre accused Ethiopia of encroaching on Somali territory under the guise of securing access to the sea. Barre framed Ethiopia’s actions as a direct threat to Somali sovereignty, stating that Addis Ababa’s moves were unnecessary and unlawful.

This diplomatic friction signals growing unease in Somalia about Ethiopia’s expanding influence in the Horn of Africa, particularly in relation to its need for maritime access, which Somalia perceives as a strategic encroachment.

Egypt’s Concern: Linking the Nile and Regional Politics

Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty also weighed in on Ethiopia’s actions, although his primary focus was on the contentious issue of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). By linking Ethiopia’s deal with Somaliland to its unilateral actions regarding the Nile, Egypt painted a picture of a country disregarding the interests of its neighbors for national gain. Cairo’s concern lies in what it perceives as Ethiopia’s overreach in both regional water management and now territorial negotiations.

The Nile River dispute has long strained relations between Ethiopia and Egypt, with the latter fearing the GERD will restrict its access to vital water resources. Egypt’s intervention in the Somaliland issue appears aimed at reinforcing its broader concerns about Ethiopia’s growing assertiveness in the region.

A Regional Leader Under Scrutiny

Ethiopia’s defense of its policies comes at a time when the Horn of Africa is grappling with several challenges, from terrorism to humanitarian crises. Addis Ababa seeks to assert itself as a regional leader, but this ambition is increasingly met with pushback from neighboring countries wary of its growing influence.

The diplomatic rift at the UN reflects the complex interplay of national interests, security concerns, and regional development aspirations. Ethiopia’s emphasis on partnership and growth is contrasted by Somalia’s territorial fears and Egypt’s broader geopolitical worries, setting the stage for continued tensions in the Horn of Africa.

Navigating Diplomatic Tensions

Ethiopia’s Somaliland deal highlights its strategic push for economic expansion and regional cooperation, but it has sparked concerns among neighboring nations about sovereignty and regional security. Somalia and Egypt’s objections, while grounded in different issues, point to a growing diplomatic challenge for Ethiopia as it seeks to balance its domestic ambitions with regional stability.

As Ethiopia defends its actions on the international stage, the broader regional dynamics will continue to evolve, with significant implications for peace, security, and development in the Horn of Africa.

Far-right Chega party leads Lisbon rally demanding stricter immigration controls and expulsion of criminal immigrants

The recent protests in Lisbon, led by the far-right Chega party, reflect growing discontent in Portugal regarding immigration, particularly concerns about “uncontrolled” and “illegal” arrivals. The Chega party, now the third-largest political force in the country, has capitalized on this sentiment, advocating for stricter immigration controls and the expulsion of immigrants involved in criminal activity. This reflects a broader trend in Europe, where far-right movements have gained ground by focusing on immigration issues.

Portugal has traditionally been more welcoming to immigrants compared to other European countries. However, recent statistics show a sharp increase in foreign arrivals, with the immigrant population now exceeding one million, making up about 10% of the country’s population. This influx, driven by economic opportunity and a relatively open immigration policy, has sparked debates about the capacity of the country to integrate newcomers while ensuring public safety.

While immigration has contributed positively to Portugal’s economy by addressing labor shortages, it has also triggered concerns about social cohesion, particularly in working-class areas where the influx has been most felt. Protests like this reflect fears among some citizens that the country’s resources and infrastructure are being stretched thin, especially in terms of housing and social services.

Chega, under leader André Ventura, has successfully tapped into these fears, positioning itself as the voice of those demanding stricter immigration controls. By focusing on crime and insecurity linked to immigration, Chega has gained political traction, more than quadrupling its seats in this year’s elections. The party’s rhetoric reflects a broader European far-right narrative that links immigration to criminality and social instability, despite mixed evidence to support such claims.

Chega’s calls for the expulsion of immigrants guilty of crimes and the end of what they describe as “mass immigration” resonate with segments of the population frustrated by the perceived lack of control over the country’s borders. However, their stance has also fueled tensions, particularly in immigrant-heavy areas where pro-immigration activists continue to push for a more inclusive approach, emphasizing that immigrants contribute to the country’s growth and cultural diversity.

In response to rising concerns, the center-right government recently toughened its stance on immigration, scrapping a policy that allowed illegal immigrants to apply for regularization if they could prove they had been working for at least a year. This shift in policy indicates that even mainstream political parties in Portugal are feeling the pressure to address immigration issues more stringently, balancing the need for economic labor with growing public concerns about security and integration.

The protests in Lisbon highlight a deepening divide in Portugal over immigration. While the country has benefited from immigration economically, the social and political challenges it brings are becoming increasingly evident. With Chega’s growing influence and the public debate intensifying, Portugal is facing a critical moment in determining how to balance openness with security. How the country navigates this issue will have significant implications for its political landscape and its role in the broader European immigration debate.

One Year After October 7 Attacks, Israel Dismantles Iran’s Terrorist Networks and Shifts Middle Eastern Power Dynamics

The disintegration of Iran’s Shi’ite Islamic caliphate network—spanning Hezbollah, Hamas, and various militias—marks a significant geopolitical shift in the Middle East. The October 7 attacks and the aftermath have seen Israel not only defend itself but also systematically dismantle the operational capabilities of these groups. For Iran, this signals a breakdown of its long-standing strategy of asymmetric warfare via proxy groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas, which had been its tools for regional influence.

From Khomeini’s Rise to October 7

The transnational terror network that began under Ayatollah Khomeini’s leadership has, for decades, destabilized the region. The ideology of Velayat-e Faqih not only targeted Israel but also sought to expand Iranian influence across the Middle East through Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and other militias. This era of Iranian power projection is deeply rooted in Khomeini’s anti-Israel and anti-Western ideologies, expressed as early as the 1960s. Over time, these ideas fueled violence and terror, enabling Hezbollah and other groups to rise as Iran’s proxies.

The recent elimination of key figures, such as Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, has weakened Iran’s primary pillars of influence. This collapse reflects a broader strategic victory for Israel. In the span of one year, Israel has dramatically shifted the balance of power in the region, no longer just defending against sporadic attacks but actively dismantling the infrastructure that sustains these terrorist organizations.

Hezbollah, once seen as a formidable player in the region, is now described as a criminal organization involved in a range of illicit activities, from drug trafficking to arms smuggling. Its operational collapse and failure to mount a counter-response to Israeli strikes reveal the organization’s increasing fragility.

Iran’s Decline and the Shifting Middle East

The ripple effect of these losses is significant. Iran’s regime, already under domestic pressure from an increasingly disillusioned population, faces a major crisis. Khamenei’s regime can no longer depend on the Shi’ite Crescent or its terrorist arms to project power. Iran’s revolutionary guards, the IRGC, and the Quds Force—often seen as the regime’s strike forces—are reduced to empty threats.

With Iran’s key allies dismantled, Tehran’s broader regional ambitions are in disarray. The loss of Hezbollah and Hamas, coupled with the fall of other militia groups, signals a historic retreat for Iran’s influence.

Israel’s success comes not just from military action but from an intelligence-led approach that has strategically targeted the most important nodes of Iran’s terror network. Despite an initially tepid response from the international community, Israel has now demonstrated its capacity to reshape the region.

The global implications of this shift are significant. The once-feared “Axis of Resistance” is now fragmented. As Iran faces increasing isolation, a new power dynamic is emerging in the Middle East—one where Israel is poised as a dominant force, not just in terms of defense but in terms of shaping the future political landscape.

A New Middle Eastern Order

The collapse of Iran’s terrorist arms marks the beginning of the end for the Shi’ite Islamic caliphate’s influence in the region. As Hezbollah and Hamas crumble, Iran’s power projection capabilities weaken. This paves the way for Israel to solidify its position as the preeminent power in the Middle East, while the region looks toward a future no longer overshadowed by the terror networks that once dominated it.

The removal of these organizations is not just a victory for Israel; it signals the dawn of a new era for the Middle East, where the destabilizing forces of terrorism are increasingly relegated to history.

For nearly two decades, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, was an adversary that Israel came to rely on—paradoxically, as a stabilizing force. Despite his fiery rhetoric and the immense arsenal Hezbollah controlled, Nasrallah’s actions were predictable and pragmatic. He carefully avoided pushing Israel to the point of all-out war, a lesson he learned from the brutal 2006 Second Lebanon War. Yet, by the end of 2024, Nasrallah’s cautious restraint came to an end, forcing Israel to change its approach and mark him for elimination.

Nasrallah wasn’t a man who tolerated Israel’s existence. If he could have destroyed it, he would have long ago. But he understood the cost of crossing certain lines with the IDF. This understanding led to an uneasy quiet between 2006 and early 2023, as Nasrallah played a careful game of balancing power without provoking Israel to the brink of war. Israel, in turn, viewed him as an enemy they could live with, knowing he would pull back when needed.

This delicate balance started to crumble in March 2023, when Nasrallah sent a terrorist deep into Israeli territory, signaling a shift. By October 8, 2023, after Hamas’s devastating attack on Israel, Nasrallah fired rockets in symbolic support of Hamas—but he stopped short of using his full force or invading northern Israel. This restraint, however, was temporary.

By mid-2024, Nasrallah’s posture had hardened. Hezbollah increased its rocket attacks, ramping up its involvement as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dragged on. Opposition figures in Israel, like Benny Gantz, began pushing for stronger action against Hezbollah, urging the government to prepare for a large-scale operation to secure northern Israel. As the situation escalated, Nasrallah became less predictable, more emboldened, and ultimately, more dangerous.

Despite repeated Israeli warnings and heavy strikes on Hezbollah’s assets, Nasrallah refused to accept a ceasefire, even after Hezbollah’s number three, Ibrahim Aqil, was killed, and 1,300 targets were obliterated in a matter of days. Israel’s government and defense establishment decided they could no longer count on Nasrallah’s restraint. He had transformed from a rational pragmatist into a leader driven by fanaticism and honor, unwilling to negotiate even as his movement was battered.

By September 2024, the Israeli leadership concluded that the only way to avoid a full-scale invasion of Lebanon was to sever Hezbollah’s head: Nasrallah. The rationale was clear—removing him might prevent further conflict escalation and allow Israel to secure its northern border without committing to a prolonged ground war.

In the end, Nasrallah’s fate was sealed. Despite hints of a ceasefire opportunity, his refusal to climb down led to his demise. Israel had lost patience, and by late 2024, the man once regarded as Israel’s “favorite enemy” was gone, ending an era of cautious restraint and signaling a new, uncertain chapter in the ongoing conflict with Hezbollah.