Nournews: Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of the Israeli regime, on the eve of the Jewish New Year (Rosh Hashanah) and at the Israeli General Staff headquarters, standing alongside Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and Defense Minister Israel Katz, referred to the coming year as “a year of struggle to destroy the Iran axis.” The choice of this specific time and place to deliver these remarks indicates that Tel Aviv intends to send layered, strategic messages simultaneously to its domestic public, foreign allies, and countries in the axis of resistance. While Netanyahu emphasizes the “destruction of the Iran axis” and the “end of the Gaza threat,” both the military and Israel’s political structure are embroiled in a multi-level crisis — a crisis that ranges from an inability to achieve the goals of the Gaza war to internal erosion and broad international pressure — and delivering such statements at a particular time and place can reflect the strategic dilemmas he faces.
Rhetorical Level and Political Symbolism
The timing and location of Netanyahu’s speech carry clear symbolic weight. Rosh Hashanah, as the celebration of the Jewish New Year, has emotional and identity ties for Israeli society. In this speech Netanyahu attempts to use this juncture to transform a crisis-stricken and discontented Israeli public’s perception of the “new year” into one of security and victory. By appearing at the General Staff headquarters alongside military commanders, he sought to stage an image of unity and synergy between government and military and to mask the disagreements that exist between him and the exhausted military leadership over continuing the Gaza war and unrealizable regional goals. It is unclear how successful he will be in shaping this image for a society that over the past year has become deeply polarized politically and socially and has endured severe psychological, economic, and wartime wounds. Through this move Netanyahu is trying to project a message of cohesion and strategic stability, although on-the-ground realities tell a different story.
Military-Security Level
From a security perspective, Netanyahu highlighted two axes: first, the complete destruction of Hamas and preventing the reemergence of the threat in Gaza; second, focusing on Iran as an existential threat. This shift in tone from Gaza to Iran signals his intent to present a transition in Tel Aviv’s outlook from a tactical battle to a strategic confrontation. In other words, Israel is attempting to redefine the current crisis in Gaza as part of a larger battle with the “Iran axis.” Such a redefinition has psychological dimensions (to avoid admitting failure in Gaza) as well as politico-security functions (creating domestic and international consensus for a broader conflict).
Regional and Geopolitical Level
Although Netanyahu has previously declared his intention to redraw the map of the Middle East and such an approach is not possible without changing the current balance, when Tel Aviv is deeply mired in a domestic security crisis, has not yet brought the Gaza war to a successful conclusion, and remains insecure along its northern borders, making new strategic claims — especially after the failed 12-day war — resembles bravado more than considered, calculated speech.
The regime’s recent aggression against Qatar, justified by the alleged assassination of Hamas commanders and which provoked a wave of international condemnation, has also put regional Arab countries — which until recently had largely remained neutral towards the regime’s provocations — at least on the defensive. This situation could increase regional opposition to the regime’s aggressive objectives.
International Level and the Game of Great Powers
Netanyahu’s speech was not directed only at direct enemies; it also sent a signal to Washington and Europe. He effectively asserted that Israel remains the frontline in containing Iran and must receive unconditional support in that role. This posture comes at a time when relations between Tel Aviv and Washington, after a year of war in Gaza, have been strained, and Western public opinion is exerting growing pressure on their governments to limit support for Israel.
The beginning of the process of European countries recognizing the State of Palestine — which is spreading like a broad wave — even if considered a propaganda maneuver, will impose significant political pressure on Israel.
From this perspective, Netanyahu’s remarks are less a clear operational plan than a clumsy attempt to rebuild allies’ trust and regain lost legitimacy in a global environment that is largely opposed to the regime’s objectives.
Strategic Contradictions
Although Netanyahu emphasizes the “destruction of the Iran axis,” the reality is that Israel has so far been unable to achieve even minimal objectives in Gaza, and, due to the brutal killing of civilians and committing of war crimes, has become one of the most reviled regimes in the international system. The incomplete release of hostages, the continued combat capability of Hamas, and the erosion of domestic political legitimacy all indicate that his strategic promises are more rhetorical than operational. This gap between declared goals and actual capabilities creates high risks for Netanyahu. Any promise that is not fulfilled could deepen internal divisions and further undermine Bibi’s political credibility.
Netanyahu’s speech should be seen as part of a “compensation game” for weakness. He attempts to make up for battlefield failures and internal pressures by creating a “grand enemy.” His strategy is based on a change of agenda: from a war of attrition in Gaza to a historic confrontation with the Iran axis. Although in the short term such a shift may create political cohesion and possibly secure U.S. support, in the long term it carries serious risks; it would place Israel on a collision course with a front that operates simultaneously across several countries and enjoys popular support and strategic depth.
In conclusion, Netanyahu’s remarks are more an effort to reproduce domestic cohesion and rebuild external trust than evidence of a precise operational strategy. But this maneuver carries high risk: if Israel cannot realize the announced promises, not only will its deterrence be weakened, but it may also lose domestic legitimacy and the ability to leverage support from figures such as Trump.
NOURNEWS