The challenge of Greater Israel and the transformation of West Asia

By Raj Kumar Sinha* 

West Asia stands at a historic crossroads. The recent diplomatic breakthrough between the United States and Iran, culminating in a 14-point peace agreement in June 2026, has the potential to reshape the region's political and security architecture. Yet this emerging framework of stability faces a formidable challenge from Israel's strategic concerns and the broader ideological vision often associated with the concept of "Greater Israel."

Pakistan, working alongside Qatar, has played a leading role in facilitating the mediation process between Washington and Tehran. Both countries also acted as guarantors of the agreement, while representatives from the United States, Iran, Pakistan, and Qatar participated in technical and diplomatic discussions in Switzerland. The agreement envisages continued negotiations over the next sixty days to reach a final and comprehensive settlement.

However, tensions surfaced during high-level talks held at Bürgenstock, Switzerland. The Iranian delegation reportedly suspended discussions after expressing anger over threats issued by U.S. President Donald Trump. Under the recent understanding between Washington and Tehran, provisions had been included for a permanent halt to military actions, including Israeli military operations in Lebanon. Iran had made the cessation of Israeli attacks in Lebanon a central condition for advancing negotiations.

At the heart of the present crisis lies a profound geopolitical contradiction between the U.S.-Iran peace process and the expansionist vision associated with "Greater Israel." Advocates of the latter seek to expand Israel's strategic reach across West Asia and eliminate Iran's regional influence. In contrast, the U.S.-Iran agreement effectively recognizes Iran as a legitimate regional power, thereby undermining some of Israel's most ambitious strategic objectives.

The idea of Greater Israel is rooted in historical and religious interpretations envisioning Jewish control over territory stretching "from the Nile to the Euphrates." Iran, as the region's principal Shia power, represents a major obstacle to such aspirations. By strengthening Iran's international legitimacy, the U.S.-Iran agreement directly challenges Israel's regional ambitions.

Israel's exclusion from the negotiations has generated considerable resentment in Tel Aviv. Israeli leaders argue that the agreement fails to address their core security concerns. Differences between President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Middle East strategy have become increasingly visible. Despite the peace agreement, Israel has continued bombing Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, reportedly drawing criticism from sections of the U.S. administration.

American intelligence agencies have reportedly warned that Netanyahu could take steps to weaken the agreement. For the Israeli prime minister, the deal presents a serious political dilemma. For decades, Netanyahu has framed Iran as the foremost threat to Israeli security and has built much of his political career around that narrative. With national elections approaching, he now faces the difficult task of explaining how a confrontation with Iran can conclude under circumstances that appear to strengthen Tehran's position.

Israel's security doctrine has also justified its military presence and operations in Gaza, Lebanon, and parts of Syria. Israeli officials argue that the agreement leaves Iran's nuclear infrastructure largely intact and does not eliminate the possibility of future nuclear weapons development. They also point out that the deal does not adequately address Iran's ballistic missile program or its support for armed groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The easing of sanctions and release of frozen assets could provide Tehran with billions of dollars, which Israel fears may be used to expand Iranian influence throughout the region.

Although Israel enjoys significant military and technological advantages, Iran possesses considerable strategic depth, a large missile arsenal, and substantial manpower resources. Efforts are reportedly underway to incorporate demands for an Israeli military withdrawal from parts of Lebanon into the peace framework, a proposal that Israel strongly opposes.

As a result, Israel increasingly finds itself isolated. It seeks to continue military operations against Hezbollah, while many international actors are pushing for de-escalation. Despite renewed ceasefire arrangements, tensions between Israel and Hezbollah remain high. The roots of the conflict are longstanding, revolving around Hezbollah's refusal to recognize Israel, cross-border attacks, territorial disputes, and competing security demands.

The conflict has deep historical roots. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1978 and again in 1982, while the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war remains a defining episode in regional memory. Hezbollah, a Shia Islamist movement and political force in Lebanon, has long been regarded as one of the world's most powerful non-state military actors. Although its capabilities have been significantly weakened by Israeli operations between 2024 and 2026, it continues to wield substantial influence.

Israel occupied southern Lebanon from 1982 until 2000. Through sustained guerrilla warfare, Hezbollah eventually compelled Israel's withdrawal in May 2000. That event transformed Hezbollah into a symbol of resistance across Lebanon and much of the Arab world. Many viewed it as the first Arab force to force Israel to relinquish occupied territory through military pressure.

Recent developments have also affected Israel's global image. International concern has grown regarding Israel's role in regional conflicts and diplomatic initiatives. According to global opinion surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center, majorities in many countries hold unfavorable views of Israel, reflecting widespread concerns about its military strategies and approach to regional diplomacy.

Many analysts argue that Israel's confrontational posture, combined with its continuing conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah, has hindered efforts to establish a durable and comprehensive peace framework. West Asia's history is filled with wars, diplomatic breakthroughs, and unresolved territorial disputes. In the modern Middle East, peace has often proved fragile and temporary.

Yet the regional landscape in June 2026 appears fundamentally different. The U.S.-Iran agreement has introduced a new framework for security and economic reconstruction. Financial relief measures designed to support Iran's post-war recovery could help reintegrate the country into the global economy.

At the same time, the priorities of many regional states are shifting. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and other Gulf countries no longer wish to rely solely on oil exports. They are investing heavily in tourism, finance, artificial intelligence, renewable energy, and global logistics. For these states, stability and economic integration have become more attractive than perpetual conflict.

The agreement may also create new opportunities for powers such as China and Russia to expand their influence through investment and reconstruction projects, particularly in Iran and Syria. Meanwhile, the United States appears to be moving away from its traditional model of direct military intervention and toward a strategy of diplomatic balancing. Pressures arising from the Ukraine conflict, competition with China in the Indo-Pacific, and domestic economic constraints are encouraging Washington to prioritize trade, energy security, and maritime stability over large-scale regional military engagements.

For India, developments in West Asia carry enormous significance. India's energy security, trade interests, and the livelihoods of millions of expatriate Indians are closely linked to the region. Greater stability would benefit India, but New Delhi will need to maintain a carefully balanced diplomacy among the United States, Israel, Iran, the Gulf states, and the growing influence of China and Russia.

West Asia is no longer merely a geography of conflict. It is rapidly becoming a central arena in the emerging global power structure of the twenty-first century. The U.S.-Iran agreement, Israel's security concerns, Iran's regional role, the growing involvement of China and Russia, and competition over economic connectivity corridors are together shaping a new regional order—one whose consequences will be felt for decades in global politics, economics, and international security.

---

*Associated with the Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Association