Israel is entering a very sensitive regional phase, with the US administration pushing towards simultaneous settlements that include Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran, in a path in which a former Israeli intelligence official sees a direct threat to the freedom of Israeli military movement, and to Tel Aviv’s ability to return to confrontation if the proposed understandings collapse.
According to an article by Reserve Brigadier General Hanan Gefen, former commander of Unit 8200, published by the Israeli “Maariv” website, the next stage requires “patience and firmness” from the Israeli leadership and the Israeli public, considering that the “expanded” American policy, despite its declared pursuit of stability, is pushing Israel onto a path in which its ability to resume fighting and defend itself becomes more restricted.
Given believes that the US administration is currently adopting a multi-dimensional approach to address the region’s crises, which includes economic tools and initiatives to limit weapons that Washington considers a threat, in addition to the increasing involvement of international powers.
In his opinion, this approach appears on the face of it to be a broad diplomatic effort, but its practical result is to push Israel onto a path in which the margin of its military freedom gradually declines.
He points to a recurring American pattern on various fronts, as Washington begins the negotiations with firm positions, but tends, as the discussions drag on and falter, to make concessions on items it considers essential, which, according to his assessment, leads to the formulation of arrangements that Israel cannot accept.
In the Gaza Strip, the writer considers that the American and international approach raises particular concern, in light of what he described as intense attempts to advance reconstruction projects before determining the mechanisms for dismantling Hamas’ weapons.
He believes that the proposed “alternative management mechanism” allows Hamas to remain in the near term with a low level of visibility, before it is later able to rebuild its capabilities, considering that the movement, in any similar scenario, will maintain broad influence over the population and will prevent other forces from entering the Strip.
As for the northern front, Giffen says that the Iranians link Hezbollah’s survival to the overall contacts they conduct with the Americans.
He describes as “worrying and dangerous” what he considered the ease with which senior officials in the US administration, including, according to what was mentioned in the article, “Vice President Steve Witkoff,” agreed to link the agreement with Iran to a ceasefire in Lebanon, considering that this gives Tehran a direct pressure card on Israeli security.
When moving to Iran, the writer finds that the scene reflects, according to his description, a bleak picture of American foreign policy, considering that the administration of President Donald Trump has reached a decisive crossroads.
He points out that the political negotiations with what he described as the “divided Iranian regime” put American negotiators in an embarrassing position, as senior officials, starting with the president, repeat almost daily that the negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz will end within a short period, before escalatory statements are quickly issued by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard demanding an American withdrawal from the region, the payment of compensation, and the lifting of all sanctions.
On the military side, Geffen points out the return of questions about the goals of the war, in light of reports of a shortage of attack missiles and interception missiles.
He adds that the Iranians have regained their capabilities and recovered, and are issuing clear threats against the Gulf states and any party that helps the United States, in parallel with Tehran continuing, according to the article, to move against commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and to use the Houthis and Iraqi factions in confronting Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
In the writer’s opinion, these moves led to a wave of anti-Iranian reactions in the Middle East, the most prominent of which, in terms of long-term strategic importance, was the establishment of the defense alliance between Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, known as the “Mecca Alliance.”
It is considered that the choice of the name was not random, but rather came to send a clear and veiled message at the same time to Muslims in the world, that the lines of confrontation have changed, and that the regional conflict has become, in essence, a Sunni-Shiite confrontation.
In his conclusion, Giffen believes that Israel now stands at the heart of a complex network of regional and international interests, under pressure to reach settlements that he considers “pampering Hamas, embracing Hezbollah, and hesitating before Iran.”
He calls for the establishment of what he described as an “iron wall” in the face of these pressures, considering that patience and firmness, in addition to preserving Israel’s independence in striking its opponents when necessary, are the way to guarantee its future in the region.
He concludes by emphasizing that “we must not turn into a bargaining chip in the negotiations of others,” an expression that reflects the extent of concern within some Israeli security circles that regional American settlements will turn into long-term restrictions on Israeli freedom of movement.
