The war is not yet over, but Israel’s military successes so far are already generating waves across the Middle East regarding its place on the “day after.”
Within this discourse, three main perspectives can be identified: the first fears Israel’s transformation into a regional hegemon, striving not only for military dominance but also for territorial expansion in the Middle East; the second views Israel as a dangerous enemy no less than Iran; and the third sees Israel as a key ally and partner, with an opportunity to strengthen and expand ties with it in the struggle against common adversaries.
The first school includes those for whom Israel’s heavy blows against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have revived longstanding fears. Already in the summer of 2025, following the first round of the war against Iran, Dr. Ofir Winter and Ms. Amira Oron warned that anxiety levels in Egypt and Jordan regarding Israeli dominance had risen sharply.
Commentators in their official media used terms such as “the new Israeli era,” “Israeli exclusivity,” “redrawing the Middle East map,” “an existential threat to regional states,” and “the subjugation of the Arab system.” They expressed concern that Israel’s military achievements would instill excessive confidence and encourage its leadership to adopt an assertive approach – one that includes not only imposing a new regional order but also extending Israeli control over parts of the Middle East.
These concerns are shared by others as well. For example, Mohammed Baharoon, head of the Emirati B’huth research institute, published an article in August 2025 titled “Arabs in the Gulf Fear Israel Is Becoming Goliath.” According to him, actors in the Gulf have concluded that Israel is “no longer seeking deterrence but dominance,” having shifted from a status quo power to one attempting to reshape the regional order through military strength and by sowing division via support for minorities such as the Kurds and Druze.
He argued that the Abraham Accords – previously perceived as an anchor of regional stability – are now seen as legitimizing Israel’s regional superiority. The article was accompanied by an image of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a press conference against a map of the Middle East, visually reinforcing the perception of Israeli aspirations for regional dominance.
These fears relate not only to military achievements but also to statements by Israeli officials. Particularly influential was Netanyahu’s interview with I24 journalist Sharon Gal. When shown a map of the “Promised Land” and asked whether he was committed to that vision, Netanyahu replied, “Very much.”
Meanwhile, the finance minister has continued to speak about applying sovereignty in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, while encouraging “voluntary migration.” The foreign ministries of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the Palestinian Authority were quick to issue condemnations of Netanyahu’s remarks.
Statements by senior American officials have also contributed to rising anxiety. The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, said in an interview with popular American commentator Tucker Carlson that Israel has the right to take control of territories promised to it in the Bible.
With the outbreak of the war against Iran, the perception of Israel as a hegemon gained further traction among its critics. For instance, former secretary-general of the Arab League (2001-2011), Amr Moussa, wrote on his X/Twitter account that this was a planned Israeli-American move aimed at creating a new geostrategic reality in which Israel would seek to lead the region.
Arab intellectuals and media figures expressed similar views. Egyptian commentator Ibrahim Nawar wrote in the influential Arab newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi that “the era of Israeli hegemony is at the doorstep.” Ahmed Mansour, also of Egyptian origin and host of two popular programs on Al Jazeera, argued that after dismantling the Shi’ite axis, Israel would attempt to dominate the Sunni axis through alliances with India, Cyprus, and Greece.
A common argument in Middle Eastern media and social networks is that Israel initiated the war and pushed US President Donald Trump to support it to impose its dominance on the region.
This perception is also shared by figures not known for entrenched hostility toward Israel. For example, Hazem Saghieh, a prominent Lebanese commentator, argued in Asharq Al-Awsat that Israel is entering its “geological era,” in which it seeks to “reshape the land, the environment, and perhaps even people – especially in Gaza, but also in southern Lebanon.”
Similarly, Bahraini journalist Abdullah Al-Junaid accused Netanyahu of launching the war to serve his expansionist vision. Both he and Dr. Aziz Al-Ghashian, a Saudi researcher, believe that the war has pushed the prospect of normalization with Saudi Arabia further away.
Regional views on Israel
The second school sees anyone who harms Arab lands as an enemy; from this perspective, Iran and Israel are two sides of the same coin. This view was clearly articulated by Qatari columnist Khaled Al-Hanji, who argued that public opinion in the Gulf is experiencing cognitive dissonance – torn between opposition to Israel based on solidarity with the Palestinians and existential anxiety over Iranian interference in vital Gulf affairs.
A leading Emirati analyst, Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, stated that Iran is enemy number one, but Israel is also a “bad neighbor” with expansionist intentions. Meanwhile, Hussein Ibish, a respected analyst of Lebanese origin argued that Gulf states now see Israel as an agent of chaos in the Middle East – just like Iran.
The third school does not view Israel’s display of military power as a threat but rather as an opportunity to forge new partnerships in the Middle East. For example, Anwar Gargash, adviser to the president of the United Arab Emirates, assessed that Iran’s attack on Gulf states would lead to closer ties with the United States and Israel.
In his view, countries that already maintain relations with Israel are likely to deepen them, while those without such relations may open new channels. A similar view was expressed by Yousef al-Otaiba, UAE ambassador in the US.
At this stage, the critical schools of thought toward Israel appear more popular, especially among the general public, while the more positive perspective aligns more closely with the thinking of decision-makers – though so far it remains limited, largely confined to figures from the UAE, the Gulf state most heavily targeted in the recent attacks.
Israel’s military successes and its image as a regional bully with influence in Washington are generating an effect of awe in the region. Some might argue that this is precisely what Israel needs, particularly after the events of October 7.
However, Israeli decision-makers must be aware that this could also lead to reluctance toward open cooperation and efforts to contain or marginalize Israel – whether by strengthening demands for the establishment of a Palestinian state or by forming new regional alignments that would leave Israel strong, but isolated.
The emerging cooperation between Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt with regard to the termination of the war may signal the rise of a new configuration that would not serve Israeli interests in the Middle East.
Prof. Elie Podeh teaches in the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is a board member of Mitvim, and a member of the Coalition for Regional Security.
Ksenia Svetlova is a former member of Knesset, CEO of the ROPES organization for regional cooperation, and a member of the Coalition for Regional Security.