New geopolitical reality emerges as Israel reshapes the Middle East

On October 7, 2023, the brutal Hamas attack on Israel prompted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to declare, “We will reshape the Middle East.”

Since then, Israel has launched a multifaceted campaign to dismantle Iran’s network of terrorist proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen.

Last week, this effort culminated in “Operation Rising Lion,” a pre-emptive strike targeting Iran’s leadership, military installations, and nuclear sites.

This audacious operation has sparked intense debate about its geopolitical ramifications, but Israel is confident it can win this war, destroy Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and change the Middle East for the better.

Israel’s strikes mark a pivotal moment in a region long plagued by Iran’s expanding influence. Prof. David Menashri, an expert at the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University, told JNS that the Middle East’s geopolitics “has changed significantly” since October 7, and particularly since Iran’s April 2024 attack on Israel with drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles.

That assault, followed by another in October, initially suggested Israel’s deterrence had weakened, creating a “devastating” situation, Menashri said.

However, Israel’s subsequent dismantling of Iran’s proxy network–Hamas, Hezbollah, and elements in Syria–has shifted the balance.

“Hamas and Hezbollah are out of the picture, Syria has collapsed, and Iraq has been neutralized,” Menashri noted, leaving Yemen’s Houthis as Iran’s sole significant ally, albeit a less potent threat.

The strikes have severely degraded Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities, potentially delaying its nuclear ambitions for years.

Menashri cautioned, however, that the outcome remains uncertain: “If this war is not appropriately finished from an Israeli point of view, it may accelerate Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Yet, if successful, Israel could achieve what many thought impossible–removing Iran’s nuclear threat for a significant period, if not forever.

Regional and global implications

Avi Davidi, a senior research fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS), provided insight into the diplomatic and economic ripple effects.

He argued that Israel’s strikes, while bold, were not unexpected, given Israel’s consistent warnings about Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. “Israel has long made clear its red lines,” Davidi said, noting that the operation’s timing and precision–crippling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and eliminating key commanders–caught observers off guard.

The strikes followed stalled U.S.-Iran nuclear talks and Iran’s rejection of a U.S. proposal, alongside IAEA confirmation of Tehran’s ongoing deception.

Russia and China

Global powers like Russia and China could exploit Iran’s weakened state, Davidi noted.

“The damage caused to Iran by Israel creates attractive opportunities for Russian and Chinese companies to assist in reconstruction and… rebuilding Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities,” he said.

This aligns with their strategic interest in deepening influence over a dependent Iran, potentially shifting Middle Eastern power dynamics further.

Russia’s multi-faceted role

Russia’s condemnation of Israel’s strikes on Iranian military infrastructure underscores its deep strategic partnership with Tehran, rooted in “decades of arms sales, intelligence sharing, and joint operations in Syria,” according to Irina Tsukerman, a New York-based human rights and national security attorney and analyst, in an interview with JNS.

She noted that “Moscow’s public condemnation of Israeli strikes is thus not only a show of solidarity but a strategic warning to preserve the carefully balanced regional order it helped engineer.”

However, Israel’s actions and Iran’s subsequent weakening pose significant challenges to Russia’s strategic and economic interests in the Middle East, while also creating opportunities for Moscow to adapt.

Israel’s strikes have disrupted Iran’s military infrastructure, weakening the regime and threatening Russia’s regional strategy.

Economically, Tsukerman highlighted that “Iran’s internal instability and military degradation threaten the flow of Russian arms exports and technological cooperation.”

Sanctions and political turmoil further limit Iran’s ability to purchase and maintain Russian weaponry, undermining Moscow’s economic interests and reducing its strategic leverage in the region.

A weakened Iran creates opportunities for rival powers such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Gulf states to expand their influence, often at Russia’s expense.

This shift, Tsukerman explained, “increases the complexity of Moscow’s diplomatic environment, forcing it to navigate a more fractured and competitive landscape.” The rise of these regional players challenges the balance Russia has sought to maintain through its partnership with Iran.

Despite these challenges, Tsukerman suggested that “Iran’s fragility may also give Russia more strategic flexibility.” Moscow could pivot by engaging other regional actors, recalibrating alliances, and exploiting competing interests to maintain its influence.

This pragmatic approach reflects Russia’s recognition of the Middle East’s “dynamic and multipolar nature,” allowing it to adapt rather than rely solely on a weakened Iran.

To preserve its regional influence, Russia must strengthen its intelligence and counterintelligence capabilities, adjust its alliances, and manage rising rivalries.

Tsukerman emphasized that “the combination of Israeli strikes, intelligence setbacks, and Iranian instability reshapes Russia’s regional strategy.”

By diversifying its partnerships and leveraging the Middle East’s competitive dynamics, Russia aims to mitigate the risks posed by Iran’s vulnerabilities while maintaining its foothold in an increasingly complex region.

According to Tsukerman, Israel’s strikes on Iran have disrupted Russia’s carefully crafted regional strategy, creating both challenges and opportunities.

While economic setbacks and rising rivalries threaten Moscow’s influence, its ability to adapt through flexible diplomacy and strategic recalibration may allow it to navigate the Middle East’s evolving geopolitical terrain effectively.

Gulf states and Egypt

For Israel’s Arab partners, particularly the Gulf states, the operation may be quietly welcomed.

“The removal of Iran’s strategic missile and nuclear capabilities may actually be viewed as a net positive,” Davidi said, citing shared concerns about Iran’s regional ambitions.

The Abraham Accords and growing backchannel cooperation have aligned Israel with these states against Iran, though public statements remain cautious. However, Davidi warned of economic risks, particularly to global oil markets.

While the conflict has not yet disrupted key trade routes like the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s potential to block this chokepoint could escalate the situation, drawing in the U.S. and Gulf states. “The oil markets are on edge, but not yet in crisis mode,” he said.

Dalia Ziada, an Egyptian scholar and senior fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA), framed Israel’s strikes as “an ‘inevitable preventive’ strike that is meant to rescue the Middle East region and the United States from the Islamic regime that has been wreaking havoc for decades.”

She highlighted Iran’s destabilizing role, from occupying UAE territory to sponsoring militias like Hezbollah and the Houthis, which have attacked Arab civilians and infrastructure.

“Arab countries issued statements condemning Israel, but they did not show support to Iran,” Ziada said, suggesting Gulf states are “quietly praying for the success of Israel” and the fall of Iran’s regime.

However, Ziada pointed to Egypt’s complex stance, driven by domestic and regional factors.

Egypt’s influence as a regional leader has waned due to “misled policymaking” and growing Qatari and Turkish influence since 2022, she said.

Egyptian state media and trolls have sided with Iran, fueled by “blind hatred of Israel.” Ziada noted the irony, given Egypt’s Sunni majority’s historical animosity toward Iran’s Shiite regime.

She cited social media reactions, where some Egyptians expressed readiness to “side with the devil and anyone who fights against ‘the Jews.’”

Iran’s recent diplomatic overtures in Cairo, including a visit by its foreign minister, underscore Tehran’s efforts to exploit anti-Israel sentiment in the Arab world.

Israel’s war, rooted in decades of warnings about Iran, has been framed by some as Netanyahu’s legacy-defining moment.

Critics argue that years of U.S. appeasement toward Iran–starting with Obama’s policies, briefly disrupted under Trump, and resumed under Biden–emboldened Tehran’s nuclear and proxy ambitions.

Israel’s strikes aim to reverse this trajectory, but the outcome hinges on uncertain factors, including U.S. involvement. Menashri noted, “We do not know the commitment of the U.S. and whether President Trump wants to enter the war or remain on the sidelines.”

The war’s success will depend on whether Israel can sustain its momentum and neutralize Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities. In just four days, Israel’s actions have already significantly reshaped the Middle East’s power dynamics, weakening Iran’s grip and emboldening its adversaries.

Yet, as Menashri cautioned, “There are so many unknowns.”