Politics
Apr 13, 2026
Daniel Levy argues that Benjamin Netanyahu’s repeated references to a ‘Greater Israel’ signal a str…
While the two‑week pause in the US‑Israel campaign against Iran remains uncertain, one constant is clear: Donald Trump lacks a concrete plan, but Benjamin Netanyahu does. The war’s stated aim – to cripple Iran’s state capacity – is only a stepping stone toward a larger vision of a Greater Israel.
For Israel’s right‑wing, the phrase often evokes a purely territorial ambition: enlarging the land Israel claims. History shows this expansionist drive has repeatedly displaced Palestinians, a process that has accelerated dramatically in recent years.
Since the war began, Israel has flattened Gaza, killing tens of thousands and reducing the civilian‑inhabitable area to roughly 12 % of its pre‑war size. In the West Bank, a wave of settlement expansion and property destruction rivals the scale of the 1967 conflict. Beyond the occupied territories, Israel has seized parts of Syria and is forging a de‑facto occupation zone in southern Lebanon, with ministers from Religious Zionism, Jewish Power and Likud openly demanding Israeli sovereignty there. Finance minister Bezalel Smotrich even called for an expansion “to Damascus,” and Netanyahu has publicly expressed a deep personal connection to this territorial vision.
However, Greater Israel is as much a geopolitical and strategic construct as a land‑grab. Netanyahu’s ambition extends beyond occupying borders; he seeks a regional dominion built on new alliances and hard‑power dependencies.
After the October 7 attacks and the ensuing Gaza devastation, Israel’s prospects for Arab‑state normalization stalled. Faced with a choice between a conciliatory approach and a zero‑sum rejection of a Palestinian future, Netanyahu chose the latter, aiming to eliminate Iran as a regional counterweight – a move that inevitably required massive US military involvement.
Former Israeli security analysts note that, from the perspective of Sunni Gulf states, a weakened Iran would elevate Israel to the role of “dominant regional power.” Achieving this, according to the article, also means softening the Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE) and making them dependent on Israel for security and energy routes. The spill‑over of Iranian drone and missile attacks on GCC infrastructure is portrayed not as an accident but as a calculated element of Israel’s strategy.
When the US‑Israel coalition struck Iranian energy sites, Iran retaliated against the Gulf, disrupting global oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Netanyahu seized the moment to propose “alternative routes” – oil and gas pipelines that would bypass Hormuz and Bab‑al‑Mandab, ending at Israeli Mediterranean ports.
In a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Netanyahu outlined a “hexagon of alliances” linking India, Arab nations, African states, Greece, Cyprus and other Asian partners, positioning Israel as the central hub. Recent IDF strategy papers echo this, suggesting Israel could achieve “operational control” far beyond its borders without permanent occupation, likening the Middle East to a “jungle” where Israel would become the “queen.”
Netanyahu now describes Israel not merely as a “regional superpower” but, in some contexts, as a “global superpower.” He promises the hexagonal alliance will confront a “radical Shia axis” and an “emerging radical Sunni axis,” with Turkey singled out as the next strategic threat.
Dismissal of the Greater Israel rhetoric as wartime hyperbole would be misleading. The article warns that a permanent war‑oriented mindset permeates Israel’s political elite, security establishment and media, posing a risk of overreach and regional blowback. Containing this expansive vision may become one of the most pressing post‑war challenges for the Middle East.