TEHRAN – Rather than increasing settlers’ sense of security, the Israeli regime’s aggression across the region has had the opposite effect.

Today, the Zionist regime finds itself trapped between two forces: a growing sense of anxiety among settlers over a persistent and uncontrollable threat, and an escalating rejection by the international community regarding its aggressive practices.
 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rejection of international proposals for Gaza can only be understood as another indication of a reality that has become clearer over time: for the occupying regime, October 7, 2023, never truly ended. 
 
The shock that struck the regime’s political and military leadership continues to reverberate, and its effects remain unresolved.
 
A pervasive sense of fear, existential anxiety, and deep mistrust in the ability of the regime’s political and military institutions to protect the entity still dominates public sentiment. 
 
This is especially striking given that the regime itself emerged under abnormal historical circumstances. Despite over two years of continuous warfare on several fronts, staunchly backed by the United States and openly supported by the West and despite repeated claims by the regime’s leaders about major achievements, the same leaders continue to warn of looming threats. 
 
Their rhetoric suggests that nothing decisive has been accomplished, as they express concern over every initiative that Washington claims would eliminate the sources of fear and insecurity.
 
In Gaza, the occupation regime claims that Hamas is rebuilding its capabilities and strengthening its presence in areas not under its military occupation control. 
 
In Lebanon, Zionist media and political discourse increasingly warn of the growing power of the resistance, accompanied by repeated threats of new military campaigns to weaken it. 
 
At the same time, the Zionist army continues to conduct drills and maneuvers simulating the next escalation on the Lebanese front.
 
As for Iran, intensified rhetoric has returned around its missile capabilities, with frequent references to Tehran’s continued development of its missile industry and the replenishment of its arsenal. 
 
Other fronts are no less sensitive. Along the eastern border with Jordan, despite a peace treaty with Amman, Israeli occupation forces (IOF) has begun constructing a wall along the frontier. 
 
Form defense minister Yoav Gallant has described drones allegedly transporting weapons from Egypt across the border as a “central threat.”
 
On the Syrian front, clashes with Syrian civilians have intensified, particularly in the area of Beit Jann, following IOF invasions. 
 
This broader reality was summed up by the regime’s chief of staff, who stated: “The war has not ended. There may be further rounds, and (the regime) remains under threat.”
 
Netanyahu, for his part, has repeatedly used this situation as justification to demand greater American indulgence toward the Israeli regime’s aggressive behavior, along with increased support and assistance for its military projects.
 
It is increasingly evident that the Zionist regime’s wars and aggression over the past two years have failed to bring calm or a sense of security. 
 
Settlers continue to live in a state of anxiety about threats from all directions. In a recent poll conducted by the Zionist Institute for National Security Studies, 64 percent of respondents said they were concerned about the security situation on the Lebanese front, a figure nearly identical to those worried about Gaza.
 
This persistent anxiety raises questions about its true causes and about how credible the claim is that it stems solely from surrounding military and security threats. 
 
Undeniably, the “Axis of Resistance” has posed a real challenge to the Zionists for four decades, achieving a series of victories against Tel Aviv and Washington. 
 
These range from the liberation of southern Lebanon in 2000 to the IOF withdrawal from Gaza in 2008 and to the establishment of deterrence equations on both the Palestinian and Lebanese fronts.
 
These developments are the cumulative result of decades of resistance, beginning with the struggle of the al-Qassam Brigades, passing through the Palestine Liberation Organization, and culminating in the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. 
 
Together, they strengthened the capabilities of resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine and affirmed a central truth: the peoples of the region have not accepted, and will not accept, the Zionist project based on the occupation of Palestine and the creation of a functional entity designed to serve Western interests and prevent the region’s independence and sovereignty.
 
What the Axis of Resistance has carried out over the past forty years is a natural extension of the region’s broad-based rejection of imposing the Zionist regime as a “normal state” in West Asia. 
 
This rejection, and the spirit of resistance behind it, constitutes the real threat to Zionist aggression. It is not rooted in disputes over borders, economic interests, or competing spheres of influence, but rather in an existential struggle.
 
The facts indicate that the Zionist regime poses a threat to the existence of entire societies, targeting their culture and values and seeking to transform them from active, influential actors into subordinate recipients. 
 
No nation that respects its own human dignity can accept such a fate. For seventy years, fighters across the region have been resisting a single project: the Zionist project itself, which Netanyahu articulated clearly when he spoke of “Greater Israel.”
 
Nevertheless, it is certain that the regime’s ongoing wars have not succeeded, and will not succeed, in delivering calm, stability, or reassurance to settlers. 
 
Repeated occupations of Gaza, occupied al-Quds (Jerusalem), the occupied West Bank, and the occupied Syrian Golan Heights have not produced security; instead, they have expanded the scope of conflict and confrontation. 
 
After the 1967 war, Palestinian armed resistance surged, followed by the 1973 war. The regime’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon and occupation of Beirut under the banner of “Operation Peace for Galilee” also failed to bring peace. On the contrary, they fostered the growth of a resistance movement in Lebanon that the Zionists would later describe as a central strategic threat.
 
Today, after the latest cycle of the occupying regime’s wars and the aggression of the past two years, all indicators confirm that the entity remains trapped in a spiral of failure when it comes to achieving stability or reassurance. 
 
This has placed the Israeli regime before an equation of “either war or war” at multiple levels, creating an exceptionally complex reality for its future.
 
The entire region is paying the price for the Israeli regime’s attempt to impose its existence by force. But it is equally true that anxiety has never left the entity. 
 
Each time it tries to escape one crisis, it falls into another. The world, increasingly, is growing weary of this pattern. This sentiment has become more widespread in Western societies, particularly as Zionist propaganda, which once succeeded in winning broad sympathy in Europe and the United States, has lost much of its former influence.
 
The circle of critics opposing the regime’s permanent wars continues to expand, especially in light of the catastrophic human toll, which in Gaza has reached the level of genocide. This reality has become evident even to U.S. President Trump. 
 
The Israeli regime today is caught between two pressures: a growing, uncontrollable anxiety among settlers, and a rising international rejection of its aggressive conduct.
 
As a result, the options available to the Zionist project are narrowing rather than expanding, contrary to what some may believe. 
 
This is a reality that the countries and peoples of the region must recognize and understand. 
 
With continued steadfastness and patience, the renewal of unity, and a determination to sustain the region’s long historical resistance, West Asia’s peoples can ultimately bring the Zionist project to an end, restoring the region’s capacity for progress and development, and achieving true sovereignty, peace and independence.