IDF Refocus: From Hamas to the Ayatollah Regime

While the international community expresses shock over Israel’s strikes on Iran’s military, nuclear, and civilian infrastructure during the IDF’s Operation Rising Lion, Hamas is experiencing a “leadership vacuum” following the elimination of its central command. This shift in focus signals a strategic recalibration by the Israeli government, which appears increasingly willing to confront the Islamic Republic of Iran in a more assertive and unrestrained manner. In this article, I argue that this escalation stems partly from Netanyahu’s political survival strategy and the repercussions of Trump’s unsuccessful efforts to denuclearize Iran. The broader shift from targeting Hamas to prioritizing Iran is also examined through the theoretical framework of offensive realism.

After over twenty months of intense conflict, which has resulted in severe civilian casualties and repeated humanitarian disasters, the IDF has succeeded in eliminating several key Hamas leaders responsible for directing its military operations. Following the killings of Deif, Sinwar and Issa, the Israeli government is now confronted with a Hamas that lacks coherent central leadership. Netanyahu has vowed that Israel’s campaign in Gaza will not conclude until the Islamist militant organization is thoroughly dismantled. As a result, the Palestinian enclave bordering Egypt may soon fall under complete Israeli military control, with the remaining fragmented Hamas elements unlikely to withstand the IDF’s sustained efforts to eradicate their political and military presence.

Though speculation persists around alleged plans by Trump and Netanyahu to view Gaza as a strategic opportunity, potentially involving American oversight of the territory, the Israeli government has yet to determine its long-term vision for the enclave. This indecision stems largely from the continued survival of Hamas, which, though severely weakened, remains active and has long benefitted from Iranian support funneled through Hezbollah in Lebanon. As a result, Israel’s broader counterterrorism campaign is far from complete, with serious concerns about Hezbollah’s future disarmament and the ongoing threats emanating from Tehran. Reflecting this shift, both the Israeli prime minister and defense minister now refer to Iran as an “existential threat”, a label once reserved for Hamas.

Netanyahu appears compelled to sustain the Jewish state’s campaign against terrorism for several reasons, which he frames in terms of existential urgency. These motivations, however, may be categorized either as matters of national security or as concerns tied to his political survival. From a strategic standpoint, shifting focus from a fragmented Hamas to an increasingly provocative Iran, which is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons capability, serves to reinforce Israel’s narrative of existential risk. Consequently, the government’s recent justification for launching strikes on more than 100 Iranian targets can be interpreted as a calculated act of offensive defense, aimed at neutralizing long-term threats before they fully materialize.

On the other hand, the Israeli prime minister urgently needs to consolidate public backing to retain power and avoid potential imprisonment. Worryingly for him, ultra-orthodox parties within the coalition have reacted furiously to his proposal to conscript Yeshiva students, who were previously exempt from military service, and have threatened to withdraw their support for Likud in the Knesset. Faced with this internal rebellion, Netanyahu has sought to shift attention outward, identifying a new adversary to justify prolonging Israel’s war on terror. By doing so, he aims to bolster national unity and sustain his popularity ahead of a potentially close general election, where every vote may prove decisive for his political future.

Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iranian leaders have maintained a hostile stance towards the Jewish state and have steadily intensified their backing for the Palestinian cause. In one notable instance, Ayatollah Khamenei’s regime described Israel as a “cancerous tumor that will be uprooted” and issued threats of an “obliterating war” and “a crushing response” to the IDF amid regional escalations. As previously discussed, Iran’s theocratic leadership has long armed and funded both Hezbollah and Hamas, aiming to undermine Israeli national security. While these proxy militias have demonstrated the capacity to inflict harm on Israeli civilians, Iran itself lacks comparable reach without relying on its Lebanese and Palestinian affiliates.

More importantly, Iran’s nuclear program poses a significant threat to Israel and its Western allies. Although the Iranian government agreed in 2015 to limit its nuclear development in exchange for sanctions relief, the IAEA has since reported that Iran is approaching weapons-grade capability. While Israel has never publicly acknowledged possessing nuclear arms, the CIA has implicitly recognized its undeclared arsenal. Unlike the Cold War superpowers, which were restrained by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, Israel fears that this principle may not deter Iran’s more ideologically driven leadership. Therefore, Iran’s advancing nuclear capabilities represent a direct and urgent danger to Israel’s national security.

Netanyahu’s shift in military focus from Hamas to Iran has introduced new diplomatic and security complexities across the rapidly evolving Middle East. As hostilities between Israel and Iran escalate, the GCC faces a delicate balancing act, particularly as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have maintained cautious diplomatic ties with both sides. Although Mohammed bin Salman warned in 2018 that Saudi Arabia would pursue nuclear arms should Iran do so, Riyadh has recently adopted a more conciliatory tone towards Tehran, seemingly at odds with Tel Aviv. This shift contrasts with its tacit approval of the UAE and Bahrain’s normalization agreements with Israel in 2020.

Finally, the IDF’s operation unfolded in the aftermath of Trump’s failed nuclear negotiations with Iran, which did not make any tangible progress. Although the US president expressed a desire to avoid war between Israel and Iran, he took no action to halt Israel’s airstrikes on Tehran. Despite the lack of open confrontation, a diplomatic rift has emerged between the Israeli and American leaderships, especially in light of Washington’s indirect talks with Hamas. It remains uncertain whether Arab states have revised their view of Israel over Gaza, or whether the US has reached its threshold for unconditionally supporting Israeli actions. Nonetheless, Israel appears diplomatically isolated over Operation Rising Lion.

In conclusion, following the collapse of Hamas’ central command and Netanyahu’s pressing need to remain prime minister, the IDF launched strikes against Iranian targets to counter the existential threat posed by Tehran. Employing an offensive realist strategy to justify its actions, Israel’s military refocus found no support from Middle Eastern allies amid the GCC’s gradual rapprochement with Iran. Consequently, Israel’s military change of focus has provoked sharp diplomatic criticism from Arab states and may trigger a realignment of regional security dynamics, the full impact of which remains uncertain. Finally, the US-Israel relationship faced strain as the Trump administration diverged from Netanyahu’s government over how to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions.