Phase two of the conflict: Objectives in Gaza and beyond?

With the failure to impose any solution in Gaza, Israel has chosen to return to escalation and military action. This approach currently appears to be systematic, employing new methods and tactics, including advanced military operations and updated weaponry. Israel’s return to fighting was highly anticipated. It is unrealistic for the United States and Israel to insist on removing Hamas from Gaza and disarming it while assuming that military conflict would not be on the table—regardless of how effective the hostage card may be in pushing for a longer and more stable truce. 

There are critical points that cannot be overlooked, which make resolving the conflict through diplomatic means difficult and complex. On one hand, Hamas perceives the U.S.-proposed solutions as an existential threat. On the other hand, Israel’s security psychology now operates on the belief that it cannot coexist with a mentality that considers Israel’s defeat possible. This makes the continuation of the conflict a fundamental necessity for Israel — not only to uproot those whom Israel considers its enemies but also to eliminate any belief in the possibility of defeating Israel. This perspective leads to the second phase of escalation and a return to the seven fronts that Israel views as threats requiring resolution.

Israel’s second phase of military operations in Gaza undoubtedly aims to impose a new reality beyond simply eliminating Hamas militarily. Resuming combat in this manner after the second ceasefire raises serious questions about the ability of Gaza’s population to endure these dire conditions. This humanitarian crisis may be exploited to reintroduce the issue of displacement as a practical solution—framed as a temporary measure until the war ends and reconstruction begins. This narrative aligns with the pressures currently being exerted by the U.S. administration.

The current escalation can be divided into two categories: geographically adjacent fronts and non-adjacent fronts. Regarding the geographically adjacent fronts, the renewed fighting in Gaza, along with the continued escalation in the West Bank—where Israel has recently taken unprecedented steps—will soon create a new reality aligned with the West Bank annexation project. This effort is already underway, with diplomatic terminology shifting to refer to the area as “Judea and Samaria” in accordance with the Israeli narrative.

In Syria, Israel has spent recent months working to isolate and neutralize the region, whether by redrawing geographic and political realities to meet its security needs or by limiting Hezbollah’s capabilities. Israel has also sought to cut supply routes from Iran to Lebanon, transforming the Syrian-Lebanese border into a strategic liability. Despite these measures, the Lebanese front remains militarily unresolved, and renewed conflict with Hezbollah could become a forced option for the group to evade forthcoming political obligations. 

Neutralizing threats from the adjacent fronts would mean shifting focus to non-adjacent threats, including Yemen, Iraq, and eventually Iran—regions that may see targeted actions and strategic operations in the coming phase. 

While the United States handles the Yemen front through unprecedented operations against the Houthi group, diplomatic pressure on Iran and its nuclear program is intensifying. The U.S. has hinted at potential military action, accompanied by showcasing advanced military capabilities—including the F-47 aircraft mentioned by President Trump and his Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, which allegedly operates covertly worldwide. This rhetoric and military posture suggest a broader preparation for potential conflict with Iran.

Amid these regional escalations, President Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, continues to emphasize the significance of the Abraham Accords, highlighting that several countries have expressed a willingness to join. He has underscored the importance of including nations like Lebanon and Syria in these agreements, indicating that the Trump administration views escalation as a tool to transform conflict zones into platforms for peace.