When the Israeli right invokes the term “Greater Israel”, it is commonly understood as an expansionist concept aimed at enlarging territories claimed by Israel. That interpretation is accurate. Since its establishment, Israel has functioned as an expansionist state built on the displacement of Palestinians, a process that has accelerated dramatically in recent years.
But what does the Greater Israel project actually mean? What do Netanyahu and the Israeli right truly intend by it? And what are the regional and global consequences of such a project?
The Greater Israel vision extends far beyond territorial expansion and settlement construction. It has evolved into a broader geopolitical project aimed at regional domination, transforming the Middle East into a permanent arena of confrontation, military conflict and widespread destruction.
This strategy has also required drawing the United States deeper into regional wars, alongside what many observers view as a deliberate attempt to weaken Gulf states and make them strategically dependent.
Over the past thirty months, Israel has levelled Gaza, reoccupied the territory, killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, destroyed civilian infrastructure and confined the population to just 12 per cent of the already besieged strip.
In the occupied West Bank, Israel continues an unprecedented campaign of destruction and forced displacement targeting Palestinians and their property, expanding settlements and tightening military control at a scale not seen since the 1967 war.
Following the collapse of Bashar al Assad’s government, Israel seized additional Syrian territory beyond the occupied Golan Heights and has moved toward reasserting military control over southern Lebanon.
Ministers and members of Israel’s ruling coalition have openly advocated imposing Israeli sovereignty and settlement expansion in both Gaza and Lebanon. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for Israel to “expand as far as Damascus”, while Netanyahu himself has spoken of feeling a “deep connection” to this broader regional vision of Greater Israel.
A Regional Domination Project
Writing in The Guardian, former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy argued that the concept of Greater Israel is as much a geopolitical and strategic project as it is a territorial one. Territorial occupation and direct control are only the visible layer of a much wider ambition.
According to Levy, Netanyahu’s vision is not limited to occupying land. It seeks to establish Israeli regional supremacy through new alliances backed by military force and strategic dependency.
Weakening the Gulf States
Following the events of 7 October and the scale of Israel’s military assault on Gaza, Israel’s regional integration strategy through Arab normalisation began to stall. Netanyahu was confronted with two options: revive regional normalisation efforts through some form of accommodation with Palestinians, or maintain his uncompromising rejection of any Palestinian political future.
By choosing the latter, Netanyahu effectively made the removal of Iran from the regional balance of power a strategic objective, one requiring direct and large scale American military involvement alongside Israel.
Levy pointed to an article published shortly before the war by two former Israeli security officials at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. They argued that key Sunni regional states viewed the collapse or severe weakening of Iran as a path toward consolidating Israel’s position as the dominant regional power.
Achieving that outcome, however, would require not only weakening Iran but also reducing the strategic independence of Gulf Cooperation Council states, making them more reliant on Israel for security and energy export routes.
From this perspective, the regional consequences of the war, including Iranian drone and missile attacks targeting Gulf states, can be viewed not merely as collateral damage but as developments serving Israeli strategic interests.
As expected, when Israel and the United States escalated the war, Gulf access to global markets through the Strait of Hormuz was severely disrupted. After Israel intensified strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure, Tehran followed through on threats to target areas inside Gulf states.
Netanyahu then used the moment to call for “alternative routes to Hormuz and Bab al Mandab”, predicting future oil and gas pipelines stretching westward across the Arabian Peninsula into Israel and onward to Mediterranean ports.
Netanyahu’s “Six Point Alliance”
In recent public remarks, Netanyahu has outlined elements of what he sees as a future regional order under Israeli leadership.
Days before the outbreak of war, during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Israel, Netanyahu described his vision for “an integrated system, a six point alliance around or within the Middle East”, involving India, Arab states, African countries, Mediterranean states such as Greece and Cyprus, and Asian partners, with Israel positioned at the centre.
A recent Hebrew language article written by two senior figures at Israel’s official military strategy institute expanded on aspects of this vision. The authors argued that the Israeli military would not merely invade and occupy territory, but would also establish “operational dominance” in areas far beyond Israel’s borders without requiring direct territorial administration.
According to the article, this would grant Israel a superior status as the “king of the jungle”, a phrase repeatedly used in Israeli political discourse to describe the wider Middle East. The objective would be to impose a regional order aligned with Israeli strategic goals.
In recent speeches, Netanyahu has increasingly referred to Israel not only as a regional superpower but at times as a global power. Israel is attempting to position itself at the heart of a regional alliance capable of enduring even as American influence gradually declines.
Netanyahu has also described this proposed alliance as one directed against both what he calls the “radical Shiite axis” and the “emerging radical Sunni axis”. Israeli discourse has since begun identifying Türkiye as a future strategic target.
Levy argues that discussions about Greater Israel are often dismissed as wartime exaggeration. Yet recent Israeli policies suggest otherwise. Permanent war has become deeply embedded across Israel’s political establishment, including government, opposition factions, security institutions and much of the media.
At the same time, this strategy carries enormous risks of overextension and severe backlash. It poses dangers not only to the region but to Israel itself, and is unlikely to be accepted indefinitely by surrounding states.
Why Critics Say the Project Harms the United States
“I promised you we would change the face of the Middle East.” Netanyahu made that declaration seven weeks after launching what he called an “epic fury” campaign alongside Donald Trump.
Amid the intensity of unfolding events, the broader strategic picture behind the war is often overlooked.
The latest conflict represented the culmination of sustained Israeli efforts, backed by Washington, to reshape the Middle East following the 7 October attacks. Supporters of this vision claim it would create a more stable and secure region.
American researcher John Hoffman of the Cato Institute disagrees. He argues that, like previous attempts to reshape the Middle East, the Greater Israel vision is rooted in arrogance and the belief that Washington and its allies can reorder the region through force alone.
Over the past thirty months, the United States has supported Israel’s aggressive regional campaign while absorbing enormous political, economic and strategic costs. Continued American backing for Israel, Hoffman argues, guarantees endless conflict at the expense of US interests.
An Expansionist and Open Ended Strategy
According to Hoffman, Israel’s post 7 October vision is fundamentally aggressive, expansionist and without a defined endpoint. It revolves around three central objectives:
Consolidating Israeli dominance over Palestinian land
This includes imposing irreversible settlement realities designed to block any future political resolution.
Dismantling armed resistance movements
Israel seeks to weaken and dismantle groups aligned with the regional resistance axis.
Neutralising Iran
Iran is viewed as the central pillar supporting these movements and therefore a strategic target.
To achieve these goals, Israel has launched a broad military campaign across multiple fronts aimed at reshaping the regional order in its own image.
This campaign has relied heavily on American protection. Washington has shielded Israel from serious diplomatic consequences, financed its wars and intervened militarily to defend Israel and confront its adversaries directly.
Hoffman notes that for decades the United States has attempted to manage the Middle East through military power, accumulating enormous costs in exchange for limited gains. Yet Washington continues repeating the same approach.
The latest attempt to remake the region alongside Israel, he argues, is no exception.
American support for Israel has fuelled widespread hostility toward the United States while leaving the underlying causes of instability unresolved. The result is a cycle of permanent unrest and open ended American involvement.
Hoffman concludes that the United States has no strategic interest in endless Middle East wars. Israel’s post 7 October vision imposes enormous costs on Washington while relying on unrealistic assumptions sustained only through unconditional American protection.
He recommends that the US administration end its support for what he describes as Israel’s catastrophic project.
Endless Destruction and Escalation
British historian, journalist and documentary filmmaker Andy Worthington has also warned about Israel’s escalating refusal to exercise restraint, arguing that it must be stopped before the consequences deepen further.
According to Worthington, Israel’s behaviour reflects an unprecedented level of political and military arrogance.
The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz triggered a global energy crisis whose full scale, he argues, has been deliberately downplayed by Western politicians and media outlets. Yet the crisis was severe enough to expose the dangers posed by Israel’s regional project to global economic stability.
He also argued that any ceasefire agreement should have included Lebanon. However, Israel has repeatedly ignored restrictions imposed by either the United States or Iran, prioritising its expansionist agenda above all else.
On 8 April, in what Worthington described as a deliberate provocation aimed at undermining the ceasefire between Washington and Tehran, Israel launched one of its most destructive assaults on Lebanon, striking more than 100 targets within ten minutes under the claim of targeting resistance positions without presenting evidence. The attacks reportedly killed 357 civilians and wounded thousands more.
Despite repeated violations of ceasefire agreements, Israel continues devastating southern Lebanon village by village. International condemnation intensified recently following the assassination of Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil, whom Israel later labelled a “terrorist” after her killing.
Over the past thirty months, Israel’s increasingly aggressive conduct has transformed its regional project into a system of endless wars across multiple fronts. According to critics, these wars no longer target military infrastructure alone but involve the systematic destruction and eradication of civilian communities deemed connected to resistance groups.
Israel’s wars have also demonstrated how its claims of “self defence” extend beyond the Middle East through deep influence within allied Western governments, particularly the United States, Britain and Germany.
These governments, while continuing to supply Israel with weapons, have also expanded crackdowns on freedom of speech, protest movements and direct action campaigns carried out in solidarity with Palestinians.
Worthington argues that Israel has become a reserve model for Western authoritarianism, functioning as a testing ground for surveillance systems, violent legislation, racial discrimination and mechanisms of repression.
A Catastrophe in the Making
Worthington warns that the destruction in Gaza risks becoming a global model for unrestricted massacres, total surveillance and authoritarian control if Israel continues operating without restraint.
“For all our sake,” he argues, “Israel and its supporters must be restrained and disarmed across every sphere of influence.”
American writer and physician Josh Bazell similarly argues that Israel’s project is driving toward territorial expansion across Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Iraq, potentially causing the displacement of millions and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
The deeper danger, he says, is that Western governments are unlikely to stop it. Instead, Israel continues receiving exceptional military and political support despite repeated accusations of war crimes.
Bazell concludes that the Greater Israel project is not a theoretical idea but an active and ongoing strategy already unfolding through successive regional conflicts. Left unchecked, he warns, it could become one of the most destructive catastrophes of the modern era.
