The debate is over. Iran’s nuclear and missile programs are not a future threat—they are a present strategic reality. The real question, therefore, is not whether Israel, alongside the United States, acts, but whether that action merely delays the threat—or decisively dismantles the system that sustains it.

If Israel strikes, the objective cannot be containment; it must be systemic collapse.

Iran is not just a state adversary—it is a network. Its power flows through Hezbollah, Syrian corridors, Iraqi militias, and financial pipelines that convert weak governance into strategic depth. As demonstrated by Iran’s direct missile and drone barrage against Israel in April 2024, Tehran is increasingly willing to operationalize this network overtly rather than rely solely on proxies. Destroying facilities without breaking this broader system guarantees regeneration.

This is the moment to break the axis.

A decisive campaign would not isolate Israel—it would reorder the region. States that hedge today do so under conditions of uncertainty. Demonstrated force removes ambiguity, and in the Middle East, power does not persuade—it compels alignment and commands respect.

That shift, in turn, creates an opening far beyond the battlefield.

The Abraham Accords were never the endpoint; they were the framework. A successful campaign against Iran would create the conditions to expand that framework to its most consequential frontier: Syria and Lebanon—not only through normalization, but through U.S.-backed security pacts and enforced strategic realignment.

Under such pressure, Syria would face a binary choice: remain tied to a collapsing Iranian axis or re-enter a U.S.-anchored regional order. Lebanon, long subordinated to Hezbollah, would face its own inflection point—sovereignty or continued capture under an externally driven militia structure.

Hezbollah, for its part, will not remain neutral.

Now fully embedded within the IRGC command structure, Hezbollah is no longer a proxy but an operational arm of Iranian strategy. When Iran is struck, Hezbollah will activate. That is not a risk to manage—it is the trigger point that exposes the organization at scale.

Once exposed, Hezbollah becomes vulnerable.

A coordinated U.S.–Israeli campaign can then move beyond deterrence to dismantlement—degrading capabilities, collapsing command structures, and ultimately removing Hezbollah as a dominant force. Not managed. Not deterred. Removed. Its fall would dismantle Iran’s most critical forward base and fundamentally reset Lebanon’s trajectory.

The military outcome matters, but the psychological outcome matters more.

For years, the region has operated under the assumption of constrained American power. A decisive campaign would shatter that assumption. Power, once demonstrated, recalibrates behavior; the region will not simply adjust—it will align.

That alignment produces the real strategic prize: Israel’s supraregional legitimization.

Not quiet normalization. Not transactional coexistence. Acceptance.

Under this new reality, Israel would no longer be viewed as a contested actor, but as a central pillar of a restructured regional order.

However, external dominance without internal cohesion produces long-term fragility.

If Israel reshapes the region, it must simultaneously restructure itself. The absence of a formal constitution is no longer sustainable for a state projecting enduring strategic power. Institutional clarity must replace legal improvisation.

Israel should therefore codify a constitution—and use it as a mechanism for integration.

The fragmentation between secular, ultra-Orthodox, and Arab communities is not merely social—it is structural. A state preparing for its next century cannot sustain parallel societies. Integration, defined as structured inclusion with enforceable responsibilities, becomes a strategic necessity.

At the same time, such a moment requires a reset in political image. Regional transformation demands leadership that signals a clear break from the Netanyahu era while projecting stability, cohesion, and forward strategic direction.

Because the next arena is not physical—it is narrative.

Even after battlefield success, Israel will face intensified global scrutiny. Legitimacy cannot be assumed; it must be constructed. Public diplomacy must therefore shift from reactive defense to proactive strategic projection, positioning Israel as a stabilizing force in a reordered Middle East.

Within that reordered environment, the Palestinian issue must also be reframed.

For decades, it has been trapped in centralized and maximalist frameworks that produce paralysis. Those models have failed. The alternative lies in localized, functional governance—an emirates model built on decentralized authority, economic viability, and enforced security coordination.

Not ideology. Structure.

A post-Iran, post-Hezbollah environment creates the conditions to impose that shift.

This is the strategic window.

If Israel acts, this moment must not become another cycle of escalation. It must mark the point at which the Iranian axis was broken, the region was reordered, and Israel positioned itself—internally and externally—for the next 100 years.

Anything less is not a strategy. It is a surrender to a persistent threat.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)