Israel’s Bid for Regional Hegemony: An Expert Analysis

Introduction

The discourse surrounding Israel's potential for achieving regional hegemony in the Middle East—especially in light of its recent military operations—constitutes a critical area of inquiry within contemporary international relations.

Recent analysis by FAF, Gulf.Inc indicates that Israel has exhibited remarkable military capabilities and operational successes. However, the journey toward sustained regional dominance is fraught with considerable structural, demographic, and geopolitical obstacles.

Additionally, this pursuit appears to come at the expense of Israel's global standing, as perceptions of it as an aggressor continue to evolve.

Defining Regional Hegemony

In international relations theory, regional hegemony is “the hegemony (political, economic, or military predominance, control, or influence) of one independently powerful state, known as the regional hegemon, over other neighboring countries.”

According to John Mearsheimer’s offensive realism framework, a regional hegemon must be “the sole great power within a particular region” such that “no other states (or combination of states) could mount a serious defense in an all-out test of military strength.”

Israel’s Current Strategic Position

Military Supremacy and Recent Victories

Israel’s recent military campaigns have indeed demonstrated remarkable operational capabilities.

The June 2025 “Operation Rising Lion” against Iran marked a watershed moment, with Israel launching over 200 fighter jets and dropping more than 330 munitions on approximately 100 Iranian targets, including nuclear facilities and military infrastructure. 

The operation successfully targeted Iran’s nuclear program while avoiding operational atomic reactors, showcasing Israel’s precision strike capabilities.

Israel’s systematic degradation of Iran’s proxy network has been equally impressive.

The organization has “decimated the leadership of Hezbollah in Lebanon through airstrikes, booby-trapped cellphones, and other means” and achieved significant tactical victories against Hamas in Gaza.

The collapse of Assad’s regime in Syria further disrupted Iran’s regional influence network, with Netanyahu appropriating this development as part of his “Axis of Resistance trophy room.”

Technological and Intelligence Advantages

Israel’s regional influence stems mainly from its technological superiority and intelligence capabilities.

Through “Mossad’s unmatched penetration into Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, and Iraqi systems, Israel can target leadership, logistics chains, and strategic assets before they mature into existential threats.”

The country’s multi-layered defense systems, including Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow 3, provide comprehensive protection against diverse missile threats.

Israel’s economy supports this military prowess, ranking as “the most developed and advanced country in West Asia, possessing the 17th largest foreign-exchange reserves in the world and the highest average wealth per adult in the Middle East”.

The nation maintains the second-largest number of startup companies globally and hosts over 400 multinational corporations’ R&D centers.

Arguments Against Hegemonic Status

Critical Dependence on U.S. Support

Despite its military achievements, Israel’s dependence on American support fundamentally contradicts the independence required for actual hegemonic status.

U.S. military aid accounts for substantial portions of Israel’s defense procurement, with “approximately NIS 7.8 billion (43%) of contracts with American suppliers” during the Gaza war’s fourth quarter of 2023. 

While this represents less than 3% of Israel’s national budget, the dependency on advanced American weaponry, particularly F-35 aircraft and precision munitions, remains strategically significant.

One analysis notes, “A true regional hegemon doesn’t have to rely on others to dominate its neighborhood, but Israel does.”

This dependency creates vulnerabilities to shifting American political priorities and potentially limits Israel’s strategic autonomy.

Structural Limitations and Geographic Constraints

Israel faces fundamental geographic and demographic constraints that limit sustainable hegemonic projection.

The country’s narrow territorial dimensions—“just 137 km across its widest and 14 km at its narrowest points”—severely restrict strategic depth. 

This geographic vulnerability necessitates Israel’s offensive/preemptive military doctrine, as “Israel’s population, industry, and military infrastructure are heavily concentrated and within easy reach of the borders.”

The demographic challenge compounds these constraints.

Current projections show “over seven million Israelis lived in Israel and the West Bank, and seven million Palestinians lived in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Israel, and East Jerusalem” as of late 2022. 

This demographic parity creates long-term sustainability questions for Israeli control over contested territories.

Regional Opposition and Balancing Dynamics

Unlike successful regional hegemons, Israel faces persistent opposition from multiple regional powers.

Turkey maintains “a semi-autonomous balancing role, exploiting regional rivalries while pursuing geopolitical ambitions.”

Saudi Arabia, despite normalization discussions, continues to condition full relations on Palestinian statehood resolution.

Iran, despite significant setbacks, “remains likely to leverage its military, financial, and organizational assets to rebuild cohesion among its proxies in Palestine and Lebanon; reinforce factions in Iraq and Yemen; and adapt to the situation in Syria.”

The Islamic Republic’s nuclear program continues advancing, with the IAEA noting Iran has “enough nuclear material for nine nuclear weapons if further enrichment to 90% is achieved”.

Legitimacy and Acceptance Deficits

Durable regional hegemony requires neighboring acceptance of the hegemon’s dominant position.

However, “no allies are prepared to accept the permanent suppression of Palestinian statehood, the enduring subjugation of the Palestinian people, or Israel’s repeated encroachments on the sovereignty and rights of neighboring Arab nations.”

Even Israel’s peace treaty partners, Egypt and Jordan, face domestic pressures opposing Israeli regional dominance.

The Genocide Allegations Context

The international community’s response to Israeli operations in Gaza significantly impacts legitimacy assessments.

Leading human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have concluded that “Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip.”

The International Court of Justice has issued binding orders requiring Israel “to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide.”

These allegations, whether legally sustained or not, create substantial diplomatic costs and limit Israel’s ability to consolidate regional relationships necessary for hegemonic status.

Alternative Interpretations: Network-Centric Security Architecture

Some analysts argue Israel is pursuing a different model than traditional territorial hegemony.

Rather than seeking direct territorial control, Israel may be “ the principal architect of regional security, operating a transnational network of intelligence, technology, military partnerships, and energy diplomacy.”

This approach leverages Israel’s technological advantages while avoiding the political costs of direct domination.

The Abraham Accords framework represents this alternative strategy, creating “integrated air defense, intelligence sharing, joint technological cooperation, and energy projects” that position Israel as a regional security hub.

This model may prove more sustainable than classical hegemonic dominance.

Conclusion

The Limits of Military Dominance

While Israel has achieved unprecedented military successes and degraded adversarial networks across the region, actual regional hegemonic status remains elusive.

The combination of structural constraints—geographic limitations, demographic challenges, persistent regional opposition, and critical dependence on external support—suggests that military dominance alone cannot establish sustainable hegemony.

Israel’s current position might be better characterized as a dominant regional military power operating within a network-centric security architecture rather than a traditional regional hegemon.

As Lawrence Freedman notes, “Great powers tend to assume that their significant military superiority will quickly overwhelm opponents.” However, they often “fail to appreciate the limits of military power” in achieving durable political settlements.

The question is not whether Israel can maintain military superiority—its technological advantages and strategic partnerships suggest it can—but whether this superiority translates into the acceptance and deference that characterize authentic hegemonic relationships.

Current evidence suggests this transformation remains unlikely without fundamental changes in regional political dynamics and resolving underlying legitimacy questions.