World powers are continually searching for diplomatic solutions to the persistent threat presented by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Yet experts and regional officials warn that even a successful agreement to halt Iran’s nuclear program would not address the broader dangers posed by the regime in Tehran. Decades of policy and behavior underscore that Iran’s aggression stems not from nuclear capability alone, but from deep-rooted ideological and strategic motivations. These motivations fuel the funding and arming of terror proxies across the Middle East—a pattern that remains unchanged, regardless of diplomatic engagement or sanctions relief.
Background and Context
The Islamic Republic of Iran has, since its 1979 revolution, pursued a policy aimed at exporting its ideology across the region. Leaders in Jerusalem, Washington, and various Arab capitals have long contended that Tehran’s regional posture is unlikely to change because of any deal focused solely on nuclear weapons. This perspective has been consistently validated by Iran’s post-agreement activities. The most prominent example is the aftermath of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), concluded in 2015, which granted Iran sanctions relief in exchange for limitations on its nuclear program.
Despite strict provisions concerning uranium enrichment and international oversight, the JCPOA did not moderate Iran’s external conduct. Intelligence and official sources, including Israeli and American defense agencies, documented increased Iranian funding to proxies such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. Each of these organizations escalated hostility—directing more sophisticated weaponry, logistics, and financial support into their respective conflicts. Israeli officials have argued that this trend demonstrates a fundamental flaw in nuclear-only diplomacy: economic relief empowers the Tehran regime to recover, consolidate power, and widen its influence through violence.
The Proxy Issue: Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza
Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis did not require nuclear technology to advance their aims. They rely on consistent infusions of Iranian funding and advanced weaponry, ranging from precision-guided missiles to drone systems. The war in Syria further enabled the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to expand its operations, building logistics corridors to Hezbollah and threatening Israel’s northern border. In Gaza, Hamas rapidly rebuilt its military infrastructure after every conflict, largely thanks to Iranian dollars and technological support. Similar patterns hold for the Houthis, who in recent years have launched attacks on Red Sea shipping and targeted Saudi Arabia, escalating regional instability.
The October 7, 2023 massacre by Hamas, the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust, was executed with support and planning from Iranian strategists, according to Israeli intelligence assessments. Advanced rockets, funding, and strategic guidance flowed from Tehran to Gaza, highlighting that Iran’s threat to Israel and its neighbors is not contingent on nuclear capability but on the regime’s dedication to its regional project.
Regime Stability as a Strategic Risk
Critics of recent proposal frameworks argue that the central issue is not whether Iran possesses a nuclear weapon, but how international agreements—intended to limit such threats—inadvertently stabilize and embolden the regime. By granting sanctions relief and access to global markets, the world community allows Iran to redirect resources towards its external ambitions rather than domestic reform or economic improvement. Attempts by Western states to compartmentalize nuclear concerns while ignoring other aspects of the regime’s conduct have repeatedly failed to mitigate the dangers of proxy warfare or terror funding.
Israeli Policy and Warnings
For Israeli officials, the lessons of past diplomatic efforts remain clear: nuclear containment does not equal peace or safety. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir have framed the current threat not as a hypothetical arsenal, but as a lived reality—sustained, organized, and financed terrorist activity directed from Tehran. Israeli policy thus calls for any negotiations or agreements to encompass Iran’s full range of hostile actions, insisting that sanctions and isolation remain until the regime halts its support for armed groups.
Wider Regional Implications
Tehran’s patronage of proxies constitutes the backbone of the so-called “axis of resistance”—the alliance of Iranian-backed forces stretching from the Mediterranean to the Gulf. Hezbollah’s missile buildup, the Houthis’ attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping, and Hamas’s repeated assaults on Israeli civilians are all linked through their dependence on Iranian strategy and logistics. This axis presents a multi-front challenge for Israel and threatens the security calculations of key US-aligned states in the region.
International figures, including senior American and European officials, acknowledge these dynamics but have struggled to craft a comprehensive policy that tackles both nuclear non-proliferation and proxy aggression.
Toward a Comprehensive Security Approach
In 2024, the Israeli position—supported by many security professionals in the region—rests on the conviction that nuclear diplomacy alone is insufficient. A lasting policy must insist on dismantling terror networks, cutting off funding, and holding the regime accountable for aggression. This requires coordination between intelligence agencies, renewed sanctions or other forms of economic pressure tied to verifiable behavioral change by Tehran, and greater support for Israel’s self-defense measures, such as air defense systems and joint operations with regional partners.
Conclusion
Focusing exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program—without addressing the proven pattern of terror sponsorship and regional interference—fails to counter the primary risks faced by Israel and its allies. The experience of past agreements, especially the JCPOA, demonstrates that economic relief empowers the Islamic Republic to regroup and expand its influence through proxies. A credible, lasting solution to regional instability must take into account the regime’s total behavior and be grounded in the clear lessons of recent history: resources sent to Tehran, intentionally or otherwise, enable conflict, not peace.
