JERUSALEM—Amid a volatile and rapidly evolving regional landscape, Israel has moved to reset the rules of military engagement across an arc stretching from Yemen to Lebanon. This policy shift, developed as a direct response to escalating threats orchestrated by Iran and its proxies, aims to reassert Israel’s freedom of action and operational deterrence in an environment shaped by the aftermath of the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre—the gravest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust.
Officials in Jerusalem have emphasized that Israel, not its adversaries, will dictate the terms of engagement as terror organizations aligned with Tehran have intensified attacks from multiple theaters. This posture is reflected in recent statements by regional actors attempting to claim the right to set new red lines—assertions Israel flatly rejects, firmly positioning itself as the arbiter of escalation dynamics.
Escalating Multi-Front Conflict
Since the atrocities of October 7, which saw Hamas terrorists perpetrate mass murder, sexual violence, and abductions against Israeli civilians, the nation has faced a persistent threat from a regional alliance known as the ‘axis of resistance.’ This informal coalition includes Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militias in Syria and Iraq—each receiving varying degrees of Iranian financing, training, and weaponry.
With Iranian-supported groups mounting attacks on Israeli territory and interests abroad—including rocket barrages, missile strikes, and attempts to disrupt international maritime trade—Israel has determined that passive or purely reactive policies are insufficient. Under Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, the IDF has initiated a proactive approach involving pre-emptive strikes, expanded intelligence operations, and cross-border offensives targeting terror assets before they can be used against Israeli civilians.
Yemen: Emergence of a Distant Threat
Houthi terrorists in Yemen have raised the stakes by firing long-range missiles and deploying explosive drones against shipping in the Red Sea as well as toward Israel itself. Intelligence assessments indicate direct Iranian involvement in weapons transfers and operational planning. In response, Israel has conducted targeted operations against missile launch positions and logistical nodes, at times coordinating with U.S. forces to protect international navigation and Israeli Red Sea ports.
While Israel historically avoided direct involvement in Yemen, the increasing sophistication and range of Houthi attacks compelled a shift in military posture. Jerusalem’s message is that geographical distance from Israel is no longer a shield for Iranian-backed terror campaigns.
Lebanon: Confrontation with Hezbollah
To Israel’s north, Hezbollah—armed and trained by Iran—maintains a sophisticated and expansive arsenal. Daily exchanges of rocket and missile fire along the Lebanese border have threatened Israeli civilian communities and led to extensive evacuations. Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, has threatened widespread escalation to deter Israeli operations in Gaza and exert pressure by opening a northern front.
Israeli officials have signaled that significant acts of aggression from Hezbollah will prompt forceful retaliation, not only against terror infrastructure but also against the broader support system that enables its hostilities. This includes communications, logistical support, and dual-use Lebanese infrastructure that has actively fueled Hezbollah’s warfighting capability. Such responses are intended to make clear that transitioning the Lebanese arena to a major theater of war carries devastating costs that extend beyond the terrorist group itself.
Expanding the Conflict: Syria and Iraq
The Iranian proxy network further extends into Syria and Iraq, where Quds Force operatives and local militias have sought to open additional fronts and transfer advanced munitions to Lebanon. The Israeli military, under the rubric of ongoing ‘between the wars’ campaigns, has carried out numerous airstrikes against arms depots, missile convoys, and other assets. These measures are intended to disrupt supply chains and degrade the capacity of Iranian-backed entities to initiate simultaneous attacks on Israel’s densely populated centers.
Dilemmas and Risks of Regional Deterrence
Jerusalem’s willingness to operate along a broad geographic arc reflects a strategic calculation: Left unchallenged, the gradual encroachment of Iranian influence and terror proxies will erode Israel’s qualitative edge, embolden further aggression, and ultimately threaten national survival. By resetting the boundaries of acceptable conduct and demonstrating the readiness to act unilaterally, Israel hopes to restore a measure of strategic stability.
However, the risk of miscalculation by regional actors remains pronounced. Hezbollah, the Houthis, and affiliated militias have shown themselves willing to test Israel’s resolve, as demonstrated by near-daily attacks and propaganda seeking to undermine Israeli public morale. As a result, both sides face an environment where missteps could escalate into a broader, multi-front conflict with potentially catastrophic implications for the wider Middle East.
International Response and American Support
While Israel’s security doctrine is guided by the imperative to safeguard its citizens and preserve sovereignty, its actions have drawn close attention from the United States and European allies. President Donald Trump, who maintains a policy of unequivocal support for Israel’s right of self-defense, has reiterated American commitments to Israeli deterrence and the containment of Iranian ambitions. U.S. naval forces have cooperated with the IDF in intercepting threats in the Red Sea—underscoring the shared interest in keeping strategic shipping lanes open and preventing the establishment of a hostile arc encircling the Mediterranean and Gulf regions.
Washington’s approach also reflects concerns that unchecked escalation could draw in global actors or destabilize critical energy and trade routes. As a result, American and Israeli defense officials maintain frequent consultations to coordinate responses, exchange intelligence, and mitigate the risk of unintended war. European governments, meanwhile, have voiced support for Israel’s right of self-defense, even as humanitarian advocacy groups urge restraint to avoid regional humanitarian crises exacerbated by Iranian-orchestrated violence.
Context and Historical Perspective
Israel’s policy of deterrence and pre-emption has deep historical roots. Seared by existential threats and genocidal campaigns, Israeli leaders regard the presence of heavily armed, Iranian-trained terror factions on their borders as an intolerable risk. The memory of the October 7 massacre is not remote history: It shapes national consensus around the necessity of decisive action in the face of aggression.
Iran’s continued provision of advanced weaponry, funding, and ideological support to proxies operating at Israel’s borders has transformed local conflicts into a regional war by proxy. This has created a security environment where the boundaries between battlefronts are increasingly blurred and the distinction between state and non-state actors is deliberately obfuscated by Iran’s operational doctrine.
Outlook
As Israel steels itself for a protracted confrontation with the axis of Iranian-backed terror networks—including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and affiliated militias in Syria and Iraq—its resolve to impose its own red lines and defend its population remains clear. The effectiveness of this approach will depend not only on military capabilities and intelligence but on the willingness of international partners to recognize and act upon the true sources of regional instability.
Ultimately, Israel’s insistence on establishing and enforcing its own rules of engagement is a statement of national sovereignty and a necessary response to an existential threat. The lessons of history, both distant and recent, underline the stakes: in the face of those who seek to destroy it, Israel cannot permit adversaries to dictate the terms of war or peace.
