Publications

As the campaign against Iran winds down, attention is expected to return to the Gaza Strip. In the meantime, Hamas is exploiting the strategic vacuum to rehabilitate its governance and military capabilities. Simultaneously, the Trump framework remains stalled, and the “Board of Peace” faces professional, operational, and budgetary difficulties in advancing its declared objectives. The issue of demilitarization remains trapped between Israel’s demand for the complete and immediate disarmament of Hamas and the organization’s stalling tactics. Israel faces three main alternatives: (1) Renewal of efforts to fully implement the Trump framework across the Strip, a course that carries the risk of “mock demilitarization” and depends on Hamas’s consent; (2) Gradual stabilization and reconstruction of areas cleared of Hamas while continuing to erode its control in areas still under its rule. This option is vulnerable to violent disruption and could entrench the Strip’s division; (3) A return to war and the reoccupation of the Gaza Strip, which would entail extremely heavy military, economic, and diplomatic costs for Israel. The key recommendation is to avoid perpetuating the status quo, which establishes Hamas’s rule, and instead adopt a proactive approach. Israel should allow the implementation of the Mladenov framework for gradual demilitarization, beginning with heavy weapons, while coordinating with the Trump administration regarding scenarios that would justify use of force. If Hamas obstructs the process, Israel should implement a differential alternative: the entry of a civilian committee and Palestinian police into “green zones” cleared of Hamas (alongside increasing Israeli security responsibility modeled on Judea and Samaria). Simultaneously, Hamas’s capabilities and governance in the “red zone” should be systematically degraded, including the gradual erosion of its territorial control. The alternative of returning to war and military occupation should remain a last-resort alternative, contingent on the formulation of an exit strategy and a designated body to assume civilian responsibility.

“Operation Roaring Lion,” the war against Iran and its proxies, has not yet reached its conclusion. Although the final outcome remains unclear and the current situation may soon shift, the campaign’s distinctive characteristics allow for an interim assessment. This is the most extensive war fought in the Middle East since the Second Gulf War, and the first in which Israel is fighting as an active partner in a coalition with the United States. While its global implications have yet to fully emerge, it is already clear that the war carries significant implications for the Gulf States, the global energy market, Israel’s international standing, and great-power competition.

Although we are currently in the midst of a war and do not yet know how it will end, the US negotiations initiative—which may bring the campaign to an end—requires a clear definition of Israel’s interest regarding the Iranian nuclear project. The conclusion of Operation Roaring Lion will place Israel and the international community before a new strategic reality vis-à-vis Iran. The regime in Tehran, if it survives the war, may—after experiencing systemic trauma and damage to its senior leadership—adopt a national security doctrine that relies on nuclear weapons as its sole existential deterrent capability. Under these circumstances, it is essential to ensure that Iran retains no nuclear capability that could serve as a foundation for a military nuclear program. This paper argues that previous models of “risk management” (such as the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) are no longer relevant. Therefore, Israel must insist on the complete dismantling of Iran’s uranium enrichment infrastructure and relevant technological capabilities as a necessary condition for ending the war, whether by diplomatic or military means.