MADRID – At a time when stability and sovereignty have become almost existential issues countries in West Asia, Amos Yadlin’s article “The Post-Iranian Middle East,” published in Foreign Affairs, perfectly encapsulates a kind of political arrogance masked as academic analysis. Far from offering a roadmap to peace, the piece by the former Israeli general reads more like an obituary for regional autonomy.

Amos Yadlin, retired general of the Israeli Air Force and former head of military intelligence, is a textbook example of what scholar Sahar Ghumkor calls “the soldier-turned-scholar”: ex-military figures who carry their battlefield mentality into political or intellectual spaces, preserving an epistemology rooted in conflict and securitization. This reductionist outlook—typical of a military apparatus that sustains an occupation regime—deeply shapes Yadlin’s reading of the region, especially when it comes to Iran, which he portrays as an absolute, irreconcilable enemy.

But the issue goes beyond flawed analysis. His worldview crystallizes a security-obsessed mindset belonging to a state whose foreign policy rests on domination and dispossession, under the permanent pretext of self-defense. In this framework, the region is not viewed as a space inhabited by peoples with legitimate rights, but as a chessboard for power plays, where Israeli hegemony is taken for granted and any actor that challenges it must be neutralized.

The specter of sovereignty

The central axis of Yadlin’s discourse is, though never explicitly stated, the negation of regional sovereignty. His proposal for a “new order in the Middle East” does not aim for collective stability but rather for a strategic redesign that privileges Israeli and Western interests—particularly those of the United States. Within this scheme, there is no room for the meaningful recognition of the rights of regional peoples and states to exercise sovereignty or defend their territorial integrity against external interference.

Israel, through its official narrative and military actions, presents itself as the main actor in the systematic delegitimization of the sovereignty of countries like Syria and Lebanon. This delegitimization is sustained by propaganda, the doctrine of preemptive war, and a recurring practice of unilateral interventions. What is framed as defensive necessity is in fact a policy of regional destabilization aimed at reinforcing Israeli strategic control.

Yadlin ignores the fact that, for millions in the region, sovereignty is not an abstract concept but a matter of survival and dignity. In contexts marked by sanctions, blockades, and military campaigns, the right to determine one’s own fate takes on immense political and emotional value. Yet his article proceeds on the premise that the peoples of West Asia passively accept a definition of “security” imposed by Tel Aviv or Washington—an idea that is not only unjust but fundamentally destabilizing.

Israel as regional demolition agent

The notion of a “post-Iranian Middle East” does not signal any real resolution of conflict. Rather, it implies a deepening of Israel’s long-standing demolition strategy. Yadlin makes no attempt to hide his enthusiasm for military campaigns and covert operations which, according to him, create “opportunities” to expand Israeli projection throughout the region. But these actions, far from fostering peace, directly undermine the sovereignty of states like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine.

Over recent decades, Israel has bombed civilian and military infrastructure, imposed suffocating blockades—especially in Gaza, where more than 56,000 people have died—and pursued a systematic policy of territorial occupation. These practices, justified under the guise of “security,” have only entrenched a landscape of fragmentation and chronic violence.

Even historically close partners—like Egypt or certain Persian Gulf states—have begun to express growing distrust of an Israel that acts outside any meaningful international scrutiny. This increasing isolation is in large part due to Israel’s refusal to recognize a fundamental right essential to any peace process: the legitimate sovereignty of the Palestinian people and their regional neighbors.

Iran: Defending sovereignty against aggression

Against this logic of demolition, Iran stands as an actor that has, for decades, asserted its right to sovereign defense. Its regional policy cannot be understood outside the context of the constant destabilization efforts it has faced: sanctions, sabotage, covert operations, and even externally backed ‘regime-change’ attempts.

Yadlin depicts Iran as a destabilizing force, but this interpretation erases a fundamental context: Iran has been compelled to develop alliances and defensive capabilities in response to real, ongoing threats. The construction of a strategic balance in the face of Israeli and U.S. pressure is, in this sense, an act of legitimate self-defense—not expansionist aggression.

In both its political discourse and diplomatic initiatives, Iran has consistently emphasized the need to respect the sovereignty of all states as a non-negotiable foundation for regional coexistence. Its vision, far from seeking hegemony, points toward a reconfiguration of the regional order based on mutual respect and self-determination.

The false promise of stability

The Israeli discourse, as embodied by Yadlin, insists that regional stability depends on neutralizing Iran. But the “stability” on offer is merely an imposed “peace,” built on permanent asymmetry, structural fear, and military control. In this framework, conflict is naturalized, and occupation is presented as a necessary defensive measure.

Tellingly, Yadlin’s article makes no mention of a ceasefire. This omission is no editorial oversight—it is a political statement. It signals that endless war remains the preferred framework, and that unilateral force continues to be the main instrument of Israeli foreign policy.

At the same time, this denial masks a deeper concern: the gradual erosion of the myth of Israel’s military invulnerability. Recent confrontations with Iran and other regional actors have exposed the limits of Israeli military power. The narrative of absolute supremacy, which for decades has underpinned Israel’s strategic aggression, is beginning to crack. Rejecting the idea of a ceasefire is also a refusal to face an uncomfortable truth: perpetual war no longer guarantees hegemony.

Sovereignty as the foundation of peace

West Asia will not move toward lasting peace as long as narratives that deny the sovereignty of its peoples prevail, and as long as force remains the dominant tool of imposition. Any serious strategic analysis of the region’s future must begin with a basic principle: recognition of the right of all actors to self-determination—without exceptions or hierarchies.

The path to genuine stability lies not in exclusion or fragmentation, but in the restoration of sovereignty, the defense of territorial integrity, and the promotion of inclusive dialogue that gives voice to those historically silenced.

In this context, Iran and its allies play a central role by defending a regional model grounded in autonomy and coexistence—not in submission or external intervention. Only when sovereignty ceases to be seen as a threat, and begins to be recognized as a shared right, will the cycle of violence begin to close—and the real possibility of a just and lasting peace emerge.