Israeli war against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah is being presented by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a turning point in the balance of power across the Middle East, with Israel claiming that its main adversaries are no longer operating at full strength after months of sustained military pressure.
Speaking during a visit to the Israeli military’s northern command, Netanyahu stood alongside Defence Minister Israel Katz and Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and outlined what he described as a coordinated campaign across multiple fronts. His message was direct. The regional actors that have long defined Israel’s security concerns are, in his words, not what they once were.
He pointed to Iran’s shifting posture, as well as the reduced operational capacity of Hezbollah and Hamas, arguing that sustained Israeli operations have forced all three into a more defensive position. The claim reflects a broader narrative coming from Israeli leadership, one that frames recent military actions not as isolated responses, but as part of a longer strategy to reshape deterrence across the region.
What Netanyahu described as a “multi arena campaign” is central to understanding Israel’s current approach. Rather than focusing on a single conflict zone, Israeli forces have operated across different theatres, targeting leadership, infrastructure and weapons systems tied to Iran and its regional allies.
This approach is built on the assumption that these groups are interconnected, both operationally and financially. Weakening one, Israeli officials argue, creates pressure across the entire network. Netanyahu credited military commanders for executing both defensive and offensive operations at scale, suggesting that the strategy has begun to produce measurable results.
Among those results, he highlighted what he called cracks within Iran’s leadership structure. While such claims are difficult to independently verify, they signal how Israel is interpreting the broader impact of its actions beyond immediate battlefield outcomes.
A significant part of Netanyahu’s remarks focused on Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader of Hezbollah, whose killing in 2024 marked a major escalation in Israel’s confrontation with the group. Netanyahu described the strike as a decisive moment that weakened Hezbollah’s command structure and disrupted its operational cohesion.
He went further, claiming that thousands of fighters had been eliminated and that a large stockpile of missiles and rockets intended for Israeli cities had been neutralised. The figure he referenced, around 150000 projectiles, underscores the scale of the threat Israel believes it has been facing.
Yet even within this framing of success, there is an acknowledgment of unfinished business. Hezbollah, Netanyahu admitted, still retains the ability to launch rockets. That residual capability continues to shape Israeli military planning, with ongoing discussions about how to fully dismantle what remains of the group’s arsenal.
Israeli war against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah is not only about immediate military outcomes. It is also about restoring deterrence, a concept that has long underpinned Israel’s security doctrine.
Deterrence, in this context, depends less on total elimination of threats and more on convincing adversaries that the cost of confrontation outweighs any potential gain. Netanyahu’s emphasis on “immense force” reflects this logic. By demonstrating the ability to strike deeply and repeatedly, Israel aims to reshape the calculations of both state and non state actors in the region.
Still, deterrence is not static. It requires constant reinforcement, particularly in a landscape where alliances shift and capabilities evolve. That is why Israeli officials continue to signal readiness for further action, even while claiming progress.
Alongside battlefield developments, Israeli media reports suggest that the government is exploring a deeper military partnership with the United States. One proposal under consideration involves relocating some American bases from elsewhere in the Middle East to Israel, as well as establishing new facilities.
Such a move would carry significant strategic implications. It would not only strengthen military coordination between the two countries but also send a signal to regional actors about the durability of the alliance. At the same time, it could further entrench Israel’s role as a central hub for Western military presence in the region.
While Israeli officials emphasize military gains, criticism has been building in Europe over separate but related issues, particularly those tied to religious access in Jerusalem.
Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez publicly condemned reports that Catholic worshippers were prevented from observing Palm Sunday in the city, calling the move an unjustified restriction on religious freedom. His remarks reflect a broader concern among European leaders about maintaining access to holy sites for all faiths.
Similarly, Mark Carney raised concerns about the implications of such actions, pointing to longstanding arrangements that govern religious practice in Jerusalem. He stressed that any deviation from this status quo risks deepening tensions in an already fragile environment.
The Israeli war against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah is unfolding on two tracks. On one hand, Israeli leadership is projecting confidence, pointing to weakened adversaries and disrupted networks. On the other, the political and diplomatic consequences continue to accumulate, both regionally and internationally.
Military pressure may alter capabilities on the ground, but it does not resolve the underlying dynamics that sustain conflict. As Israel continues its campaign, the challenge will not only be sustaining operational momentum, but also managing the broader fallout that comes with it.
In that sense, the current moment is less a conclusion and more a phase in a longer, uncertain trajectory.
