The recent spate of Israeli victories has left the impression that Israel is now the military and political hegemon in West Asia and can shape the region to suit its preferences — the near decimation of Hezbollah’s military wing in Lebanon; the overthrow of the Assad regime leading to extended Israeli control of Syrian territory; the total devastation of Gaza and the drastic reduction of Hamas’s military capabilities, and, above all, the near total destruction of Iran’s nuclear weapons capability albeit with American help.
The fragile ceasefire imposed by United States President Donald Trump in Gaza last week adds to this impression because of his accompanying harsh rhetoric, publicly warning Hamas about the devastating consequences that it may face if it rejects his plan. To the uninitiated this may appear to signal a further tilt in favour of Israel. But Mr. Trump’s plan was much more an imposition on Israel than it was on Hamas. In effect, it was Israel that was ordered to ceasefire since it was doing all the shooting and the killing and to partially withdraw its forces to new lines in Gaza. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to give up his goal of completely destroying Hamas and reimposing full Israeli control over Gaza. All that Hamas conceded was the release of Israeli hostages in return for the release of over a thousand Palestinian prisoners. Hamas has so far not accepted Mr. Trump’s demand to disarm and give up its goal of governing Gaza after a total Israeli withdrawal. Whether it will ever do so is an open question.
It is a binational state
While prospects for Israel’s regional hegemony may look bright in the short term, such hegemony is unsustainable over any length of time. Despite its current militarily unchallenged position, eventually, Israel will prove to be a colossus with feet of clay. There are several indicators that point in this direction.
Editorial | Pause, not peace: On the Hamas-Israel ceasefire agreement
The first is its demographic base. Israel within its 1967 borders has a population of just over nine million, with Palestinians forming 20% or about two million of this population. The West Bank including East Jerusalem plus the Gaza Strip is home to over six million Palestinians. Greater Israel, which is the dream of a sizable proportion of Israeli Jews, will have a population almost evenly divided between Jews and Palestinians.
Therefore, in terms of demography, it will clearly be a binational state. This is bound to pose an existential dilemma for Israel. It would have to accept the political as well as the demographic reality of a binational state with equal rights for all its Jewish and Palestinian citizens if it wants to remain a democracy. Alternatively, it would have to openly acknowledge the fact that it is an apartheid state with one ethnic group ruling over the other à la South Africa under Afrikaner rule. The first option would put an end to the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in the heart of West Asia. The second it will formalise the existing situation but at the same time bring upon Israel a huge amount of international opprobrium that would leave it further isolated internationally and treated as an outcaste state just like South Africa under apartheid rule. Either of the options would leave Israel internally divided or internationally isolated or both. For such a state to sustain a hegemonic position in the region in the long-term would be a very tall order.
The impact of Israel’s actions
The second reason why Israeli hegemony is likely to be unsustainable is the fact that its recent actions have scared off several Arab regimes, especially the Gulf sheikhdoms and Saudi Arabia, that had seen Israel as a potential counterweight to Iran’s perceived hegemonic ambitions in the region. This assessment was the driving force behind the so-called Abraham Accords among Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, and extended later to Morocco and Sudan. These states now perceive Israel as a power drunk actor that has run amok. While some of them may have secretly applauded Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah, the atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza — where 67,000 Palestinians, including thousands of women and children, have been killed by Israeli bombs and bullets and by Israel’s policy of starving the besieged population — have left them unnerved. Although these states have authoritarian regimes, their rulers realise that popular anger over the carnage in Gaza is reaching boiling point and can have deleterious effects on the legitimacy of their regimes if they are seen cosying up to a perennially aggressive Tel Aviv bent on denying the Palestinians their right to self-determination.
Furthermore, the callous Israeli attempt to kill Hamas negotiators in Qatar by bombing Doha, in September 2025, in contravention of its promise not to attack Hamas officials in Qatar, has convinced the Gulf regimes that they cannot consider Israel to be a trusted friend let alone an ally. This has set back by years the Israeli-American dream of extending the so-called Abraham Accords, and especially the all-important normalisation of Israel’s relations with Saudi Arabia. Israeli legitimacy even among sympathetic Arab elites has reached its nadir.
Finally, Israel’s actions in Gaza, which border on ethnic cleansing, have brought about a sea change in popular opinion in the U.S. This is extremely important because Israel’s ambition for hegemony in West Asia rests on the assumption that it would have unflinching support from Washington. While this may not be clear at first sight, the erosion in popular support for Israel in the U.S. is bound to be reflected in American policy in the not-too-distant future. Mr. Trump’s railroading of Mr. Netanyahu to accept his plan for ending the war in Gaza, although it did not meet the latter’s goals, may be a sign of things to come. Israel’s abject dependence on the U.S. was laid bare by Mr. Netanyahu’s call, on Mr. Trump’s command, to the Qatari Prime Minister to apologise for the attack on Doha.
Two years, 65,000 deaths: The data story of Gaza’s war
American popular opinion has never been so hostile towards Israel as it is now. A recent Pew poll found that almost 60% of Americans hold negative views of the Israeli government. Even a substantial proportion of American Jews has turned against Israel. Another recent Washington Post poll showed that 61% of American Jews hold the view that Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza and that 40% believe that Israel committed genocide. Many American academics, including most genocide scholars, believe that Israel’s policies in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide. This is true of most human rights organisations as well. In short, American public opinion is becoming synchronous with the opinion held in most European countries that has forced many of their governments to recognise the State of Palestine despite the strident objections of Israel and America. This swing in public opinion is eventually bound to influence decision-makers in Washington especially since a considerable part of Mr. Trump’s MAGA (’Make America Great Again’) base has also begun to subscribe to it.
The view in Washington
American support to Israel is of vital importance to Tel Aviv. A major change in Washington’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict and towards West Asia in general could transform the whole equation between Israel and its neighbours. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the U.S. has major strategic and economic interests in West Asia which have so far played second fiddle to its unquestioning support for Israel. This could easily undergo a change under Mr. Trump given his transactional approach to international relations where allies’ interests are considered secondary to American objectives.
Furthermore, with Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities degraded and the Tehran-led Axis of Resistance in a shambles, Israel’s strategic value to Washington stands reduced. In fact, it is beginning to be perceived as an obstacle to the achievement of America’s larger strategic and economic goals. Without America’s unconditional support, Israel would be cut down to size and its dreams of regional hegemony shattered beyond repair. This is a scenario that may happen sooner or later, and probably sooner than later.
Mohammed Ayoob is University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of International Relations, Michigan State University, U.S., and the author, most recently, of From Regional Security to Global IR: An Intellectual Journey (2024)
Published – October 13, 2025 12:16 am IST
