Israel and US After October: The Power of Deterrence and the Re-engineering of the Balance of Power in the Middle East

At the heart of the Middle East, where geography intertwines with history and politics overlaps with daily security, Israel operates in a complex environment that blends direct and indirect threats, powerful allies and growing adversaries, and interconnected local and regional arenas. Since its establishment, Israeli security doctrine has been designed on a strict premise: survival requires continuous military superiority and constant readiness to use force if necessary. The limited strategic depth, narrow geography, and sensitive home front have made security an absolute priority, superseding all other considerations.

At the core of this doctrine lies deterrence, particularly through the policy of nuclear ambiguity, which forms a strategic umbrella preventing a slide into a comprehensive regional war. This policy has succeeded in preventing conflicts between states but has not been sufficient to stop non-state threats such as the Hamas movement in Gaza, or Iranian expansion through its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Here it becomes clear that nuclear deterrence and classical military superiority do not cover all dimensions, highlighting the role of specific offensive operations as a tool to re-adjust the balance of power.

After the surprise attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023, Israel entered a new phase of complexity. The attack exposed the weakness of traditional deterrence and redefined the threat as existential and immediate. The Israeli response was not limited to Gaza but extended to Hezbollah threats in Lebanon, sending deterrent messages to Iran, and targeting Houthi sites in Yemen after threats to navigation and reciprocal attacks. This transition from managing a low-intensity conflict to multi-front wars reflects a strategic shift: the goal is no longer limited to deterrence alone, but has become the reshaping of the security environment according to the priorities of defending existence.

In this context, the United States plays the role of the dominant power attempting to re-impose regional order and prevent chaos from expanding. After October, Washington demonstrated military mobilization and a direct threat to Iran, while simultaneously conducting negotiations to de-escalate tensions and prevent the conflict from escalating into a wider confrontation. This blend embodies American precision that combines offensive and defensive realism: military mobilization represents a clear threat to Iran and a signal of Washington's ability to use force, while negotiations are used to reduce risks and avoid an open war that could drain resources and increase regional complexity. American support includes regional alliances, intelligence, and nuclear deterrence, forming a strategic cover for Israel and its allies and protecting American interests in the Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

Gaza is no longer just a local escalation arena, but has become a starting point for broader regional transformations. Every Israeli strike there re-tests deterrence and dismantles Hamas's qualitative capabilities, but it carries an international political and moral cost. In the north, deterrence against Hezbollah is tested within precise calculations to avoid the engagement escalating into a full-scale war. As for the confrontation with Iran, it shows the precise limits of direct deterrence, where Israel and America must manage threats without being drawn into a wide conflict. In Yemen, strikes against the Houthis show an expansion of the concept of security to include the maritime domain and trade routes, confirming that the Israeli conflict is no longer confined within its traditional borders.

From here, Israel and the United States can be depicted as an interconnected network of parallel strategic actions: Israel seeks to re-establish control in Gaza and impose deterrence equations in Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen, while America works on a broader level to support deterrence, balancing military threat and managing negotiations to stabilize the regional balance of power and protect its interests and ensure the continuation of partial American hegemony.

A Moment of Middle East Re-engineering

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statements that the Middle East is at a crossroads and that Israel is ready for any scenario are not just mobilizing rhetoric, but an expression of the understanding that the region is entering a phase of realignment that could change the rules of the game for decades. His threat to Iran of a strong response in case of an attack on Israel reflects a transition from a policy of implicit containment to direct and explicit deterrence. The battle is no longer just about limited strikes, but has become closer to an open deterrence equation.

The Israeli discourse extends beyond Iran to include a broader network of influence, comprising Hezbollah, Hamas, and other armed groups, reflecting a view that the threat is multi-front and interconnected. In contrast, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's warnings of the potential formation of an “anti-Sunni axis” led by Turkey and Saudi Arabia, with the possible involvement of Pakistan, show concern about the transformation of the Sunni environment itself if popular and political anger escalates due to the Gaza war.

The regional scene is not binary between a Shiite and a Sunni axis, but a complex network of intertwined interests. Israel, which sought to expand the circle of Arab normalization, finds itself facing a dual equation: confronting Iran and its proxies without losing the regional path, and maintaining deterrence without pushing moderate states to reposition themselves under public pressure.

Power and Image

After October, Israel moved not only to demonstrate military power but also to re-establish its image as a deterrent regional power. Multi-front military operations and warnings against any Iranian move are a message of strength directed at adversaries and allies alike: Israel has regained the initiative and is capable of operating in more than one arena simultaneously.

American support reinforced this image, not only with military and intelligence aid but also with political and diplomatic cover, which gave Israel greater room for maneuver in managing its operations. However, maintaining the image is no less important than military capability; prestige in the Middle East is a deterrent element in itself, and any erosion of it could encourage adversaries or cause some capitals to recalculate.

But the challenge lies in managing the consequences of power: excessive use of it may enhance short-term deterrence, but it may push regional powers to seek counter-balances, whether at the political or diplomatic level. The Middle East today is not an arena of rigid axes, but a network of flexible alignments; Israel seeks to consolidate its superiority and deter its adversaries, and America supports this path within the management of the global balance.

Conclusion

In the narrow space between power and politics, between deterrence and negotiations, and between attrition and stability, Israel is trying to reshape the regional environment and adjust the balance of power to ensure its security, while America works to protect its interests and maintain the hegemony of the partial international order. Israel needs to keep the image of power present, while carefully managing the consequences of this power, to avoid counter-regional realignments that could redraw the borders of the Middle East for many years to come. October 7, 2023, was not just a military event; it was a moment of strategic transformation, opening the door to re-engineering the balance of power, and making deterrence, power, and alliances intertwined tools in the game of survival and stability in a transforming Middle East.