Back in April, two former State Dept. officials, Aaron David Miller and Steven Simon, noted in an essay in the NY Times:
“Enabled by the United States, its Arab treaty partners, and key Persian Gulf states (they meant Saudi Arabia – DI), the Israelis have broken the Hamas-Hezbollah ring of opposition and revealed the vulnerability and weakness of their patron in Tehran while also degrading Iran’s air defenses and missile production. Israel has expanded its occupation of Syrian territory, taken control of areas of Lebanon just north of its border and undertaken aggressive tactics in the West Bank not seen since the second intifada, which ended 20 years ago.”
Washington Post columnist Ishaan Tharoor (he was born in Singapore to Indian parents) suggested on Wednesday:
“Israel insists that its operations are focused on the ‘existential’ risks posed by Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. But in recent days since the war flared, it appears that Netanyahu’s goals may be more far-reaching. He also suggested killing Khamenei — that is, taking out the head of the regime — would bring a tidy end to the conflict. In a conversation with Iranian opposition media based abroad, he bluntly argued that now was the time for regime change. ‘A light has been lit, carry it to freedom,’ Netanyahu told Iran International’s Pouria Zeraati. ‘This is the time, your hour of freedom is near, it’s happening now.’”
By comparing two columns—each penned by traditionally left-leaning voices aligned with the longstanding U.S. foreign policy view that Israel should be allowed to survive its wars but never decisively win them—it becomes strikingly clear that, under post-October 7 Netanyahu, Israel has finally broken through those restraints.
Which brings us to Stephen M. Walt, a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, who wrote on Monday an essay titled: “Israel Can’t Be a Hegemon – The Israeli government is making a bid for regional dominance that’s unlikely to succeed.”
Citing Israel’s astonishing march (or flight) through its many enemies: Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, and, finally, Iran, Walt insisted:
“Given that each of these actions has been at least partially successful—at least in the short term—should we now think of Israel as a regional hegemon? If such a state is defined as ‘the sole great power within a particular region,’ such that ‘no other states (or combination of states) could mount a serious defense in an all-out test of military strength,’ does Israel now qualify? If so, should we also expect its neighbors to act as others have when facing a hegemon: ‘recognize its superior power and defer to it on matters of vital interest to the hegemon?’”
I’m quoting these authors primarily because they’ve dared to articulate a view that many of us in Israel wouldn’t dream of expressing openly, for fear of being dismissed as Messianic fantasists—or worse, labeled Kahanists. The vision of a “Greater Israel,” though quietly shared by many on the Israeli right, remains largely confined to niche forums and a small circle of public figures and politicians. Even the movement advocating for the extension of Israeli sovereignty—essentially applying Israeli law—to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is still, astonishingly, in its infancy more than half a century after the Six-Day War.
The WP’s Ishaan Tharoor wrote:
“In a Tuesday interview, Netanyahu said Israel’s military actions were paving the way for ‘a different Middle East.’ It’s one where Israel, buoyed by ironclad U.S. support, has emerged as the paramount hegemon. Tiny in size and population, it nevertheless has been able to exert its superior capabilities across a wide sweep of countries and targets, at little to no political cost. What Trump and his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, hoped to achieve through back-channel diplomacy with Tehran has been swept aside by the new status quo Netanyahu is forging.”
Tharoor, like the other commentators cited here, conveniently overlooks the fact that—aside from an increasingly isolated Iran—much of the Middle East, including many ordinary Iranians, are quietly cheering Israel on. When Netanyahu speaks of a region free from Iran’s toxic influence, he’s actually offering a remarkably liberal vision: one of regional self-determination, cooperation, and progress.
Isn’t it more than a little peculiar that former State Department officials and left-leaning columnists appear unsettled by the idea of Israel leading the Middle East toward a freer, more stable future?
Finally, how about the vision of Israeli hegemony as depicted in I Kings, 10:23-25:
“King Solomon surpassed all the monarchs on earth in wealth and in wisdom. All the world came to pay homage to Solomon and to listen to the wisdom with which God had endowed him, and each one would bring tribute—silver and gold objects, robes, weapons and spices, horses and mules—in the amount due each year.”
Can the Washington Post live with that?
