From Gaza to Tehran: How Israel’s Strategic Ambitions Are Redrawing the Middle East
Israel has long experienced strategic chokeholds in its trade routes. Since its 1948 founding, Egypt often restricted its access to the Suez Canal and by extension, to the Red and Mediterranean Seas...
Israel has long experienced strategic chokeholds in its trade routes. Since its 1948 founding, Egypt often restricted its access to the Suez Canal and by extension, to the Red and Mediterranean Seas by closing the Straits of Tiran and barring Israeli-flagged vessels. This trade vulnerability offered a compelling motive for a bold solution: the Ben Gurion Canal.
Envisioned since the 1960s and periodically revived over the decades, including most recently around 2020 to 2021, the Ben Gurion Canal would carve a new waterway from Eilat in the Red Sea, through the Negev and potentially through Gaza into the Mediterranean. Proponents describe a trade super route, two lanes, 50 meters deep, 200 meters wide, capable of handling the world’s largest ships and surpassing Suez in efficiency.
Critically, domination of Gaza is seen as essential. Analysts argue that only by gaining control over Gaza and potentially displacing its people can Israel realistically build and secure the southern Mediterranean terminus. This explains, in part, why Israel is launching major military operations in Gaza under the stated banner of security but with a deeper strategic layer aimed at unlocking territorial control for canal construction.
This logic, using military power to secure trade leverage, does not end in Gaza.
Recent Israeli operations against Iran, known as Operation Rising Lion, have involved pre-emptive strikes on Iranian nuclear and missile infrastructure and the targeted killing of senior IRGC commanders. Prime Minister Netanyahu openly linked these strikes to regime-change ambitions in Tehran, calling on Iranians themselves to oust the clerical leadership.
But beyond halting Iran’s nuclear advance, analysts argue that Israel is seizing on a narrow window of strategic opportunity. Tehran’s traditional allies such as Hezbollah, Assad’s Syria, and Houthi Yemen are weakened or fragmented, exposing Iran’s vulnerabilities. Against this backdrop, Netanyahu is positioning Israel as the emergent Middle Eastern hegemon.
This military assertiveness reflects a growing regional ambition. Hegemonic aspiration, with proxies diminished and U.S. backing on the rise, Israel is asserting itself as the primary arbiter of regional security. Economic control, just as the Ben Gurion Canal strategy aims to reroute global commerce under Israeli influence, military disruption of Iran threatens vital energy flows including oil, gas, and shipping lanes, consolidating Israel’s hand. Greater Israel vision, while never termed explicitly in policy, the combination of territorial control in Gaza, regional dominance, and economic leverage aligns with ideological narratives of a “Greater Israel”, a secure, expanded basin of power.
In short, military pressure on Iran is not purely defensive. It is a deliberate projection of influence, echoing the canal strategy’s trade for domination logic.
The current Israel Iran war is thus not simply a struggle over nuclear proliferation. It’s a clash of strategic blueprints.
The objective in the Gaza Canal Strategy is territorial gain through control of Gaza to build the Ben Gurion Canal, economic leverage through Suez bypass and dominating global shipping, hegemonic ambition by establishing a regional trade hub, and a political vision of building a fortified infrastructure axis.
The objective in the Iran Strikes Strategy is territorial gain by pressuring Iran to solidify regional primacy, economic leverage through threatening energy flows and securing trade choke points, hegemonic ambition by being the primary security broker and reshaping alliances, and a political vision of promoting regime change and expanding “Greater Israel” influence.
The logic is clear. Israel is using military might to build both a physical corridor, the canal, and a geopolitical corridor, regional dominance. Gaza control secures trade access. Iran pressure secures political and security primacy.
These patterns pose profound risks.
First is trade instability. If Gaza becomes a militarized trade route, it may invite sabotage. If Iran becomes a target, global energy markets risk destabilization.
Second is democratic concerns. Regime-change gambits, especially Israel encouraging Iranian uprising, may backfire, fostering nationalist backlash and prolonging conflict.
Third is geopolitical reshuffling. As Israel aligns closer with Gulf allies and challenges both Iran and Egypt, the regional balance is shifting, forcing external powers to either enable or contain Israel’s ambitions.
Policy alternatives include insisting on multilateral trade routes, supporting Egypt’s Suez role and discouraging unilateral canal construction through Gaza, enforcing balance by encouraging equal application of NPT standards in Iran and Israel, reining in regime-change rhetoric by pressuring all parties to engage in diplomacy over escalation, and framing a new regional compact to reimagine Middle East security based on mutual trade, water, and energy interdependence rather than territorial dominance.
Israel’s trade-driven canal vision may explain part of its Gaza operations. And now, as it aggressively confronts Iran, you see the same blueprint writ large, using military firepower to control geography, trade, and influence. The result is a quest to forge a Greater Israel stretching from the Red Sea to Tehran’s periphery.
For the world, the challenge is clear. Resist conflating military victories with stability. True regional peace can only come from trade built in peace, not in the shadow of bombs.
Author
