Netanyahu foreign policy 2022–2026 reveals a pattern of tactical success paired with deepening strategic strain. Since returning to power, Benjamin Netanyahu has advanced a doctrine centred on military dominance, anti-Iran alignment, and economic integration independent of the Palestinian question.
While this approach has delivered clear gains most notably against Hezbollah it has also triggered significant diplomatic fallout, stalled Saudi normalisation, and intensified global legal and political pressure on Israel.
The result is a complex foreign policy landscape where immediate battlefield victories coexist with longer-term risks, raising critical questions about sustainability, regional stability, and the future direction of Israeli strategy.
In November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for a sitting Israeli Prime Minister. This was not an external imposition on Israeli strategy. It was a product of it.
The warrant and the legal, diplomatic, and political architecture surrounding it represent the accumulated cost of choices Netanyahu made freely, consistently, and with clear political purpose.
It is the most precise symbol available for understanding what his foreign policy has actually produced: a militarily stronger Israel operating in a diplomatically narrower world, with fewer tools available for the crises that follow this one.
Since forming Israel’s 37th government in December 2022, Benjamin Netanyahu has pursued a recognisable strategic doctrine of anti-Iran alliance building, military dominance over the Iran-led proxy network, and economic globalisation decoupled from territorial conflict.
That doctrine has produced real gains, most clearly in Lebanon, where the autumn 2024 campaign against Hezbollah achieved verifiable strategic results that no serious analyst can dismiss.
But the same period has seen the Saudi normalisation track the doctrine’s stated crown jewel frozen indefinitely, Israel’s multilateral legitimacy placed under institutional siege at the ICJ, and the diplomatic footprint Netanyahu spent years constructing in Africa and Latin America largely reversed.
The primary mechanism behind this contradiction is not strategic incoherence. It is domestic coalition capture: a right-wing government whose survival depends on positions that directly contradict its declared strategy. The result is a foreign policy that consumes the conditions for its own future success.
This blog tests that argument across four domains: the United States relationship, Middle East realignment, Iran and security policy, and global legitimacy, treating the Lebanon campaign and the Saudi normalisation collapse as the two most revealing test cases.
Contents
Doctrinal Framework: Aspiration and Its Veto
The “Netanyahu Doctrine,” as it can reasonably be reconstructed from his UN General Assembly speeches of 2023 and 2024 and the 37th government’s coalition guidelines, rests on four pillars: containment and rollback of Iranian regional power, normalisation with Sunni Arab states on the basis of shared anti-Iranian interest, military deterrence sufficient to impose unacceptable costs on any actor threatening Israeli territory, and the pursuit of economic integration with the global economy regardless of the territorial conflict’s status. This is a coherent strategic vision. It deserves to be taken seriously on its own terms before it is interrogated.
The interrogation, however, is damaging. If this doctrine were genuinely driving Israeli foreign policy, Saudi normalisation, the diplomatic achievement that would have transformed Israel’s regional position more decisively than any military operation, would have been protected at nearly any cost.
The logic is straightforward: a Saudi-Israeli normalisation agreement, backed by US security guarantees to Riyadh, would have cemented the Sunni-Israeli alignment against Iran that the doctrine identifies as its central objective, delivered legitimacy that no military campaign can generate, and potentially created the political cover for a manageable Palestinian arrangement. Netanyahu understood this. He described Saudi normalisation publicly as potentially “the greatest breakthrough in the history of Zionism.”
It did not happen. Instead, the “total victory” framing in Gaza demanded by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir for coalition survival directly torpedoed the Saudi track. Riyadh’s conditions for normalisation hardened around Palestinian statehood commitments that Netanyahu’s coalition cannot and will not make. The doctrine did not choose Gaza over Riyadh. The coalition did.
This is the blog’s central irony, established early because it runs through every subsequent section: the political coalition that keeps Netanyahu in power is the primary structural obstacle to the strategy Netanyahu claims to be pursuing.
The appropriate IR framework here is not offensive realism but omni-balancing, the theory that leaders of states under multiple pressures manage internal factions as much as external threats, often at the expense of coherent grand strategy. Netanyahu is balancing Ben Gvir and Smotrich as much as he is balancing Iran and Washington.
The United States: Extracting Support, Narrowing Space
This section argues that Netanyahu has mastered extracting US support while evading its conditions, but that the ICC warrant and the fracturing of domestic American political consensus are beginning to close that space in ways that previous pressure never did.
The extraction pattern is a matter of record, not interpretation. Netanyahu opposed the Oslo process while accepting its framework. He survived the 2003 roadmap without implementation. He repeatedly defied the Obama administration on West Bank settlements without lasting consequences.
He addressed a joint session of Congress in 2015 to openly oppose a sitting US president’s signature foreign policy initiative, the Iran nuclear deal, and faced no meaningful penalty.
He sustained military operations in Gaza throughout 2024 despite repeated US requests for humanitarian pauses, weapons use restrictions, and ceasefire agreements. In each case, the US provides diplomatic, military, and financial support. This is a structural feature of the relationship, not an accident of personality.
Netanyahu understood earlier and more clearly than most US administrations that domestic American political costs of withdrawing support from Israel consistently outweigh the strategic costs of Israeli non-compliance. He has governed accordingly.
The aftermath of October 7 initially appeared to confirm this pattern. The Biden administration provided unprecedented military support, emergency arms packages, aircraft carrier deployments, and repeated vetoes at the UN Security Council. But the conditionality that emerged was qualitatively different from previous episodes.
The May 2024 pause on heavy bomb deliveries, prompted by specific concerns about their use in densely populated areas, represented the first time since the 1970s that the US had withheld offensive weapons from Israel during an active conflict.
The internal Biden administration debates over the Leahy Law, which prohibits US military assistance to foreign security units credibly accused of gross human rights violations, reached unprecedented levels of seriousness. These are not footnotes. They are evidence that the relationship was under structural strain, not merely personal tension.
The ICC warrant introduced a different order of constraint. It is institutional and durable. It cannot be resolved by a ceasefire, a phone call, or a change of US administration.
It follows Netanyahu personally, making normal diplomatic intercourse with him politically costly for any Western leader, including American officials who cannot be photographed warmly receiving a head of government under international criminal indictment without domestic political consequences. This is a qualitatively new constraint on the functioning of the relationship.
Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025 restored warmth but not certainty. Trumpian support for Israel is transactional rather than ideologically rooted in evangelical Christian political constituencies, personal affinity, and the Abraham Accords as a legacy achievement, but not in the moral-historical commitment that undergirded Democratic mainstream support for decades.
Trump’s Gulf commercial interests, Saudi sovereign wealth fund investments, LIV Golf, and regional economic partnerships create specific moments in which Israeli and American interests diverge. Netanyahu cannot assume Trump’s backing is a blank cheque, as he could once assume bipartisan moral consensus.
The Democratic fracture is structural, not temporary. Generational polling data shows younger American voters, including younger Jewish Americans, hold systematically different views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than their predecessors.
Congressional abstentions on Israel-related votes, primary challenges to incumbents seen as insufficiently critical of Israeli operations, and the visible protests at the 2024 Democratic convention reflect a political realignment that will outlast the current conflict. The bipartisan consensus that underwrote unconditional US support is weakening from below, not merely shifting at the top. Netanyahu has manoeuvred brilliantly amid a changing political environment.
Middle East Realignments: One Success, One Collapse
This section argues that October 7 simultaneously confirmed Netanyahu’s military-strategic logic and collapsed its diplomatic prerequisite, and that the Lebanon campaign, while a genuine strategic success, cannot substitute for the normalisation architecture that the coalition’s Gaza strategy destroyed.
The Abraham Accords model rested on a specific assumption: that Arab governments could normalise with Israel regardless of Palestinian conditions, provided Iran remained the shared enemy and the economic benefits of normalisation were sufficiently attractive.
The UAE-Bahrain agreements of 2020 appeared to validate this. Netanyahu treated them as proof that the Palestinian question could be managed rather than resolved, that the Arab world had, in effect, moved on.
October 7 exposed the assumption’s limits. The Arab public had not moved on. The scale of Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza created political conditions in which even Arab governments that shared Israel’s interest in Iranian containment could not sustain visible normalisation without domestic political cost.
Saudi Arabia’s conditions for resuming negotiations hardened around Palestinian statehood commitments, not because Riyadh had changed its strategic calculus about Iran, but because the Gaza war made any alternative domestically untenable. The Accords model had discounted Arab public opinion as a constraint on Arab governments. It was not discountable.
Against this collapse, the Lebanon campaign stands as the period’s genuine strategic success, and it deserves full acknowledgement.
The autumn 2024 operations against Hezbollah, the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah in September, the remarkable pager and walkie-talkie operations that simultaneously incapacitated thousands of Hezbollah operatives, the subsequent ground incursion into southern Lebanon, and the November 2024 ceasefire achieved verifiable results.
Hezbollah’s command structure was degraded in ways that will require years to rebuild. Its deterrence posture against northern Israel was materially weakened.
The strategic threat from the north, which had constrained Israeli military planning for two decades, was significantly reduced. This aligns with the doctrine’s logic. It was not obviously distorted by coalition politics, as Gaza policy has been. It happened, it was significant, and it is Netanyahu’s strongest case.
But Lebanon degraded Hezbollah. It did not replace the Saudi track. It did not resolve the Gaza “day after” problem, the vacuum of governance and political authority that Netanyahu’s coalition forbids him to fill, because any solution involves Palestinian political agency that Ben Gvir and Smotrich will not accept. It did not rebuild the multilateral legitimacy that the Gaza operations destroyed.
A genuine strategic success in one theatre does not compensate for structural collapse in the broader normalisation architecture that the doctrine identified as its own objective. This is the section’s hard conclusion, and it feeds directly into the blog’s final confrontation.
Iran: Degradation Without Resolution
This section argues that Israeli operations against Iran and its proxies have degraded capabilities without resolving the underlying conflict dynamic and that the consistent gap between claimed and verified achievements reflects a government with strong structural incentives to overstate success.
The incentive structure for exaggeration is worth establishing before examining the claims themselves. Netanyahu’s political survival, his legacy narrative, Israel’s deterrence posture, and the IDF’s institutional interests all point in the same direction: toward presenting operations as more decisive than independent evidence supports.
This does not mean the claims are false. It means they require triangulation against sources such as IAEA reports, US intelligence assessments, and academic conflict monitors that do not share those incentives.
Consider the three central claims. First, that Hezbollah has been “decimated.” The command degradation is verified and significant, as argued above. But the organisation survives, retains a substantial missile arsenal, and is actively rebuilding.
“Decimated” is a political description, not a military assessment. Second, that Hamas has been “destroyed.” This claim is most directly contradicted by ongoing IDF operations in Gaza as of April 2026, which would be unnecessary if the organisation had been destroyed rather than degraded.
Hamas’s military capacity has been reduced; its governance capacity is unclear; its recruitment, documented by multiple independent monitors, has continued throughout the war, drawing on the civilian casualty figures that generate the political conditions for radicalisation.
Degraded is accurate. Destroyed is not. Third, that Iran’s nuclear programme has been “set back significantly.” As of April 2026, this claim remains largely unverified by IAEA reporting or independent intelligence assessments. It may prove accurate. But a government claiming historic achievements should be held to a standard of evidence, not credited on assertion.
The deeper analytical problem is the distinction between degrading and resolving. Degrading proxy capabilities is tactically real. It does not control escalation.
The April and October 2024 direct exchanges between Iran and Israeli territory, the first such direct confrontations in the modern history of the conflict, represent a qualitative shift in the threat environment that proxy degradation does not address. Iran fired ballistic missiles at Israeli territory. Israel struck Iranian territory. Whatever doctrine governs Israeli behaviour in this new direct-confrontation environment has not appeared to be articulated publicly. The escalation cycle has intensified; its endpoint has not been defined.
The blog’s real test of the Iran section is this: has Israel improved its long-term security, or intensified a conflict cycle without an exit? The honest answer is both, and that the balance between them depends almost entirely on what Iran does next with its nuclear programme.
If Iran achieves nuclear breakout, the degradation of Hezbollah and Hamas becomes strategically secondary. Every tactical gain of the past three years occurs in a neighbourhood with a nuclear-threshold Iranian state. Netanyahu’s doctrine identifies the Iranian nuclear programme as the existential priority. The campaigns against the proxy network, however successful tactically, have not resolved that priority. They have bought time at rising cost.
Global Diplomacy: The Legitimacy Collapse
This section argues that Israel’s tactical security gains have been purchased at the cost of a structural legitimacy deficit and that legitimacy, too often dismissed as soft power sentiment, is in fact a hard strategic resource whose erosion has material consequences.
Operationalise “legitimacy” before deploying it. Legitimacy governs arms supply coalitions. The political feasibility of transferring weapons to Israel depends partly on the perceived legal and moral status of their use. It governs intelligence sharing: states that have moved into active diplomatic opposition to Israel at the UN are less likely to share intelligence with Israel bilaterally.
It governs the diplomatic cover necessary to build the Sunni Arab alliances. The doctrine requires Arab governments normalising with Israel under active ICJ genocide proceedings to face higher domestic political costs than those normalising with an Israel operating within accepted international norms. Legitimacy is not a feeling. It is a resource. Its erosion has strategic consequences.
South Africa’s genocide proceedings at the ICJ are the most significant multilateral development of the period, and they are treated as insufficiently important in most strategic analyses. Their significance lies not in their likely legal outcome but in their institutional durability.
A ceasefire does not make them disappear. A change of Israeli government does not erase them. Their existence reframes every future Israeli military operation in international legal terms, creating a precedent, a record, and a legal architecture that will be invoked in every future conflict.
Netanyahu’s governments did not stumble into this situation. Specific decisions regarding the volume and targeting of strikes, the use of starvation as a pressure tactic, and the conduct of operations in hospitals and refugee areas created the evidentiary record that enabled the proceedings.
The African and Latin American reversals are quantifiable. Colombia, Bolivia, and Chile all severed or downgraded diplomatic relations with Israel at various points during the conflict. Israel’s Abraham Accords-era diplomatic gains in Africa, years of patient engagement with Ethiopia, Rwanda, Chad, and others, have largely reversed.
This represents a measurable contraction of Israel’s diplomatic footprint in regions where it had made concrete post-2020 progress. Netanyahu spent years building this footprint precisely because it reduced Israel’s isolation in UN voting blocs. That work has been substantially undone.
Netanyahu’s alignment with European nationalist movements, Orbán’s Hungary, and parties adjacent to Marine Le Pen’s RN provided short-term political cover in some quarters while accelerating estrangement from mainstream European governments and, crucially, from the EU institutions that govern arms export licensing and trade agreements.
The irony is sharp: Netanyahu, a leader whose political identity is built on Jewish security, has aligned Israel with political movements whose voter bases carry historically elevated antisemitism levels, in exchange for diplomatic support that has proven strategically marginal.
These losses are not temporary. The ICC warrant, the ICJ case, and the African and Latin American reversals will outlast the Gaza war. They represent the structural diplomatic cost of the period, and Netanyahu has optimised for the current conflict at the expense of the diplomatic infrastructure required for the ones that follow.
Conclusion: Which Matters More?
Netanyahu’s strategy has been tactically effective and structurally self-defeating. This is not a balanced judgment designed to satisfy all readers. It is the most accurate description of what the evidence shows.
The case for tactical effectiveness rests primarily on Lebanon. Nasrallah is dead. Hezbollah’s command structure has been degraded in ways that will require years to rebuild. The northern threat environment has genuinely shifted.
These are real achievements, and they align with the doctrine’s logic in ways that validate the claim that a coherent strategic vision exists and can, under the right conditions, be executed. If the Lebanon campaign were the whole story, the verdict would be different.
It is not the whole story. The Saudi normalisation track, the doctrine’s stated crown jewel, the achievement that would have transformed Israel’s regional position more decisively than any military operation, is frozen, and frozen by choices Netanyahu’s own coalition made. The ICJ genocide case is live.
The ICC warrant stands. Israel’s multilateral legitimacy has contracted in ways that are institutional and durable. The Iranian nuclear programme, the doctrine’s identified existential priority, remains unresolved. The proxy network has been degraded; the escalation cycle has intensified; its endpoint is undefined.
The reader should confront this directly: a degraded Hezbollah is a genuine strategic asset. A frozen Saudi track, an active ICJ case, an ICC warrant, a contracting alliance base, and a domestic coalition that forecloses the Palestinian concessions that any regional settlement requires these are genuine strategic liabilities.
Which side of this ledger matters more depends on what comes next. If Iran achieves nuclear capability, the tactical gains become secondary. If the escalation cycle produces a wider regional war, the diplomatic isolation becomes a material constraint on Israel’s ability to manage it. If domestic Israeli politics produces a post-war reckoning that removes the far-right coalition, the strategic picture may shift.
What does not change is the structural observation at the heart of this analysis. Netanyahu’s strategy has not failed. But it is consuming the conditions of its own future success, eroding the diplomatic, multilateral, and normalisation foundations that any durable Israeli security posture requires, in exchange for military gains whose durability depends on conditions Netanyahu does not fully control. That is not a verdict on the man. It is a structural observation about what this kind of politics costs, and what the bill will eventually require.
Leave a Reply