While some regional and international actors remain hopeful about reviving diplomatic pathways, what emerges from Israel’s conduct on the ground suggests not a willingness to de-escalate, but rather a move toward consolidating a new security order—one rooted in perpetual war and almost always conflict. This order reflects, above all, an expansionist outlook framed in security terms.
Rather than prompting a reassessment of the costs of war and the necessity of political solutions, developments since October 7 have seemingly strengthened the belief within Israel’s leadership that security is attainable only through expanding control. The establishment of buffer zones and advances into neighboring territories underscore an effort to reshape regional boundaries to serve hegemonic ambitions.
At this point, the new doctrine evolves from a security strategy into a project with broader geopolitical dimensions. Within this framework, efforts to depopulate large rural Shiite areas in Lebanon, destroy infrastructure, and convert extensive areas into scorched earth form part of its operational logic, one that defines security through the physical elimination of living environments, not merely the neutralization of military threats.
The tragic events of recent days in Lebanon, marked by extensive casualties and destruction following Israeli attacks, must be understood within this context. This assault mirrors operations previously carried out in Gaza and Syria and reflects an intent to expand this approach to other countries in the region. Israel’s defense minister recently stated that Lebanese border villages would be razed in a manner similar to Rafah and Khan Younis, in order to eliminate any possibility of return or future threat. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also spoken of establishing new “security belts.”
However, this approach faces serious challenges. First, the assumption that a stable outcome can be imposed through military means in a region characterized by complex networks of state and non-state actors is highly questionable. Past experience shows that maximum pressure often leads to the reproduction of new forms of resistance, this time increasingly reliant on asymmetric tools, including missile and drone capabilities.
Under such conditions, even Israel’s air superiority, long considered a cornerstone of its deterrence, faces mounting strain. The spread of advanced air defense systems, the increased precision and range of modern weaponry among regional actors, and the cumulative burden of sustained operations across multiple fronts (Gaza, the West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and more recently Iran) have significantly eroded this advantage.
At the same time, the disregard for international law and the normalization of widespread destruction of civilian areas not only undermine the legitimacy of this approach, but also heighten the risk of deeper isolation and growing political and legal pressure. In this regard, strongly critical positions adopted by countries such as Spain toward Israel’s recent actions are likely to further weaken its standing.
Domestically, the continuation of wartime conditions is also pushing Israeli society toward fatigue and growing pessimism, factors that could themselves become sources of instability.
What is now described as the “new security strategy” of the Zionist regime reflects costly ambitions and overreach by a system seeking to convert crisis into lasting dominance. Yet the region’s history has repeatedly shown that security built on aggression, rooted in destruction, displacement, and disregard for social and political realities, is neither sustainable nor stabilizing. Instead, it carries within it the seeds of future crisis and renewed instability.
NOURNEWS