At dawn on June 12, 2025, Israel launched a military offensive against Iran. This attack coincided with Reza Pahlavi’s televised call on Iran International for nationwide uprisings and increased operations by groups such as Jaish al-Adl, remnants of the MEK, Kurdish separatist parties, and monarchist cells. This timing was no accident but rather a sign of a grand security and military design likely crafted in Israeli intelligence and defense think tanks. It appears what is now unfolding is the American-Israeli “New Middle East” plan, implemented piece by piece to fragment and reshape regimes not only in Iran but across the region.

Numerous documents and evidence—including informal statements by Israeli officials, analyses by think tanks such as the Atlantic Council, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the RAND Corporation, as well as comments by former Mossad figures like Sima Shine—indicate that Israel’s strategy toward Iran extends well beyond dismantling its nuclear program. According to Shine, these attacks are the result of years of planning to target Iran’s nuclear facilities (AP News). This broader strategy encompasses regime change, soft fragmentation, and the long-term weakening of Iran as a balancing power in the region.

Stephen Walt, a leading international relations theorist, argues in Foreign Policy that Israel’s “peace through power” projects are inherently destabilizing, leading only to new cycles of instability and war. If we define hegemony as the dominance of a single uncontested power recognized by others, then America’s policy of turning Israel into the Middle East’s superpower only breeds greater rivalries and instability. Washington’s project of installing Israel as the region’s gendarme is doomed to fail. No country in the region—from Pakistan to Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or even Qatar—recognizes such a role for Israel. The risk of a return to oil embargoes like in 1973 by OPEC members, or wars reminiscent of 1967, is hardly far-fetched under the current outlook. Even after years of Western efforts to normalize ties under the Abraham Accords, beyond a handful of states, virtually no one recognizes Israel’s legal existence de jure and de facto, let alone accepts its hegemony.

Back in his September 2023 address to the UN General Assembly, Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a “New Middle East” map that erased Palestine, depicting the West Bank and Gaza as parts of Israel. This was widely seen as a sign of Israel’s ambition to remake the region in its favor while ignoring Palestinian rights. Netanyahu had also declared in October 2020 that “we are changing the map of the Middle East,” referring to normalization deals with some Arab states—deals that ultimately led nowhere. These remarks were part of Israel’s broader strategy to dominate the region, which at the time may have seemed less serious, but today, with Trump’s return to power in the U.S., the domino of fragmentation and collapse is closer than ever for Middle Eastern countries.

Some Western analysts and exiled Iranian opposition figures, such as monarchists closely tied to Israel, mistakenly believe that the fall of the Islamic Republic would transform Iran into a “normal” country easily integrated into a Western- and Israeli-friendly regional order. But this analysis ignores Iran’s historical identity, social fabric, and geopolitical position. Whether governed by the Islamic Republic or another system, Iran—due to its geostrategic and geopolitical standing—will never accept Israeli hegemony. Iran’s territorial, demographic, cultural, and civilizational capacities make it an inherent regional power. Actors like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Egypt also perceive the prospect of a Zionist hegemon as a direct threat.

Israel’s “peace through war” strategy, backed by the U.S. and some European governments, echoes the logic of past colonialism. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, British and French colonial schemes, and orchestrated coups in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt all sought to shape a Middle East subservient to Western interests. Today, these designs persist through new instruments, such as Mossad’s covert operations—including arms smuggling and drone strikes inside Iran. Such tools repackage war as “peace,” whether through genocide or territorial aggression.

Yet the feasibility of such a project is deeply questionable. With its rich history, deep cultural roots, and strategic significance, Iran is unlikely to succumb to external pressure for regime change. Iranians—regardless of political affiliations—possess a strong sense of national identity and sovereignty that resists any imposed foreign order. The region’s dynamics are also complex, with countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt pursuing their own interests and ambitions that do not align with Israeli hegemony. Turkey, for example, driven by its aspirations for regional influence and support for the Palestinian cause, and Saudi Arabia, concerned about Israel’s growing footprint, would likely resist these plans. Even Qatar, with its independent foreign policy and tacit support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, is unlikely to accept Israeli dominance.

Moreover, history shows that foreign attempts at regime change in Iran—such as the 1953 coup against Mossadegh—have often met fierce resistance and unintended consequences. This historical experience suggests that any external intervention in Iran is more likely to breed instability than establish the West’s desired order. For example, past Western support for opposition groups like the MEK not only failed to achieve regime change but also strengthened Iranian nationalism.

Israel’s regime change blueprint for Iran, the activation of terrorist groups, and international pressure will only undermine regional stability, escalate chaos, and spread violence. Accepting Israeli hegemony is impossible not only for Iran under any political system but also for other regional states. Genuine peace cannot be achieved through proxy wars and intricate coups. It comes through dialogue, respect for balance of power, and acknowledgment of regional realities. Any project built on force and division is ultimately doomed to fail, even if it briefly fosters the illusion of victory.

The international community, especially through institutions like the United Nations, must recognize the dangers of such hegemonic ambitions. Peace in the Middle East can only be achieved through inclusive dialogue and respect for the sovereignty and rights of all nations in the region—not by imposing the will of one nation upon others.