How Netanyahu Turned The 2025 Military Victories Into A Diplomatic Disaster – OpEd
By Brian Hudson
In 2025, Israel achieved relative military success against Iran and its allied proxy groups. However, these victories have failed to translate into diplomatic capital for fostering stability in the Middle East. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister, has remained fixated on military superiority and steadfastly refused to address the Palestinian issue, pushing away potential Arab partners, stalling efforts at normalization, and pushing the region toward greater instability.
Israel’s military campaign, particularly the twelve-day war with Iran in June 2025, showcased the country’s strategic power. Operation “Lion’s Roar,” which commenced on June 13, targeted Iran’s nuclear and military facilities, significantly hindering Tehran’s ambitions. This operation, bolstered by deep intelligence infiltration and coordination with the United States under the leadership of Donald Trump, not only disrupted Iran’s nuclear program but also weakened its missile capabilities. Prior to this war, Israeli operations in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria had already dealt severe blows to Hamas and Hezbollah. In a speech in June 2025, Netanyahu declared that Israel had nearly achieved its goals against Iran and its proxy forces. With unwavering support from the United States, including the lifting of restrictions on heavy weapon shipments such as bunker-buster bombs, Israel solidified its position as the region’s dominant military power.
Nevertheless, these military achievements have not been accompanied by diplomatic progress. Netanyahu’s maximalist agenda—evident in his rejection of a two-state solution and his backing of plans to relocate Palestinians from Gaza—has raised alarms among Arab countries and dimmed the prospects for expanding the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia, which plays a key role in regional normalization efforts, reiterated in February 2025 that it would not establish diplomatic relations with Israel without the formation of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. This stance aligns with a broader consensus in the region; Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, and the Arab League have all rejected plans to resettle 2.3 million Palestinians from Gaza, decrying them as ethnic cleansing and a blatant violation of international law. In joint statements at Arab League summits in the spring of 2025, these countries called for an immediate cessation of Israeli actions in Gaza and the resumption of negotiations for a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu’s approach, rooted in a doctrine prioritizing military power over political compromise, has marginalized the Palestinian issue. His 2019 statement that Israel is “the nation-state of the Jewish people, and only of the Jewish people,” and his authorization of the destruction of Gaza homes in 2025 to force Palestinian migration, reflect a strategy that ignores Palestinian autonomy. These policies have not only fueled accusations of genocide—endorsed by reports from B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, and the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry—but have also sparked global condemnation. Countries such as Brazil, Colombia, and South Africa have joined the International Criminal Court (ICC) case against Israel, demanding accountability for its actions in Gaza. This diplomatic isolation has occurred while Israel remains militarily unrivaled.
The diplomatic fallout from this approach is stark. At the UN General Assembly in July 2025, a joint Saudi-French-led conference on a two-state solution witnessed condemnation of Hamas by 22 Arab countries and Turkey. However, these countries also called for the establishment of a Palestinian state—an appeal Netanyahu dismissed as “rewarding terrorism.” European countries, including the UK, France, Spain, and Canada, announced plans to recognize the state of Palestine, further isolating Israel diplomatically. These developments coincided with Argentina, under Javier Milei’s leadership, facing regional backlash from Latin American nations for its steadfast support of Israel, particularly after inviting Netanyahu to visit in September 2025 despite the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant. Argentina’s stance, especially in the wake of Netanyahu’s visit, risks escalating diplomatic tensions with neighboring countries such as Brazil and Chile.
Netanyahu’s alignment with Trump’s radical proposals, such as the plan for US “domination” over Gaza and its population transfer, has further complicated Israel’s position. While Netanyahu praised Trump’s “outside-the-box” ideas, Arab officials, including Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan, warned that these plans threatened regional stability and undermined efforts for a ceasefire. The Guardian noted that although Trump’s Gaza plan was unfeasible, it emboldened Israel’s far-right extremists, who viewed it as a step toward annexing Palestinian territories. This sentiment has been reinforced within Netanyahu’s coalition, including far-right cabinet ministers, darkening the prospects for peace. For example, in June 2025, Israel’s Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, called for the acceleration of settlement expansion in the West Bank, a move even Israel’s Western allies condemned as a violation of international law.
The failure to capitalize on military victories lies in Netanyahu’s long-standing strategy of bypassing Palestinian negotiations in favor of normalization with Arab countries. His vision for a “new Middle East,” presented at the UN in 2023, disregarded a Palestinian state, instead relying on economic prosperity and military power to secure Israel’s future. The Abraham Accords with the UAE and Bahrain were hailed as proof of this approach’s success. However, the Hamas attack in October 2023 and the subsequent Gaza war revealed the shortcomings of this strategy. These events reminded the world that the Palestinian issue remains critical to regional stability, and without its resolution, sustainable normalization is impossible.
Security analysts warn that Israeli actions, including the violation of the Gaza ceasefire in March 2025, risk exacerbating tensions. Israel’s airstrikes on Damascus in July 2025, under the pretext of protecting the Druze minority, angered the new Syrian government and complicated US efforts to mediate a deal between Israel and Syria. The international community, from the EU to the Arab League, condemned Israel’s policies, with countries such as Australia, China, and Russia warning about a “cycle of violence.” Even within Israel, figures like former Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon have expressed concerns about the consequences of Netanyahu’s policies in Gaza, including the potential for war crime allegations.
The path to lasting peace requires direct engagement with the Palestinian issue. Tor Wennesland, the Norwegian diplomat and UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, has argued that short-term solutions like humanitarian aid or normalization agreements without Palestinian sovereignty are doomed to failure. Arab proposals, particularly the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, recently revived at the Riyadh summit in May 2025, offer a framework for peace that includes the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. However, Netanyahu has rejected these proposals, choosing instead to focus on settlement expansion and military operations. This approach not only reduces the chances for peace but also subjects Israel to mounting international criticism, including UN resolutions calling for an end to the occupation.
Until Israel shifts its focus from a military-centric approach to one that prioritizes diplomacy and Palestinian rights, its military victories will remain hollow. Continuing Netanyahu’s current policies, including West Bank annexation plans and the forced relocation of Palestinians, increases the risk of prolonged conflicts. This trajectory will not only isolate Israel diplomatically but will also push the region further into instability, squandering the historic opportunities for peace that emerged following the 2025 military victories.
