In the rubble of Tel Aviv, where Iranian missiles struck days earlier, Israeli President Isaac Herzog stands resolute. The conflict with Iran represents a fundamental recalibration of Middle Eastern power, he has argued, and there can be no turning back. What he articulated in recent days goes beyond military necessity; it amounts to a declaration that the region's entire future hinges on dismantling Tehran's capacity to project force across the Gulf and beyond.
Herzog described his recent meeting with U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee as a discussion of "the incredible partnership and this unique force of good" between the two nations, adding that "once you undermine this empire of evil emanating from Tehran, we will be able to offer venues of peace, goodwill, and a prosperous future for the people of the Middle East." The language suggests something more ambitious than tactical military objectives. It frames the war as existential not merely for Israel, but for the entire region.
The arithmetic of the conflict has expanded dramatically. Since the U.S. and Israel began strikes on Iran, at least nine other countries have been drawn into the conflict as Iran retaliates against oil and gas installations, as well as U.S. forces. Iran's retaliatory strikes have reached targets in Gulf Arab states, Iraqi Kurdistan, Jordan, Turkey, Azerbaijan and as far away as Cyprus. This is no longer a bilateral Israeli-Iranian confrontation; it has metastasised into a regional war with unpredictable consequences.
The initial Israeli and U.S. assault achieved what was widely regarded as an impossible objective. An early Israeli missile killed Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with several other senior government and military officials. For Herzog and Israeli strategists, this moment represents the culmination of years of tension. Israeli officials report that the military operation has removed or degraded large swaths of Iranian command nodes, missile infrastructure, and senior figures. They believe they have disrupted the machinery of Iranian regional dominance at a moment when the regime appeared weakest.
But ambition and execution are separated by a vast gulf. Herzog told CBS News that regime change in Iran is "not necessarily" the goal of the war, but rather "Middle East change", crippling Iran's nuclear ambitions, terror sponsorship, and proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) to bring long-term regional transformation. This distinction matters. One can degrade a state's military apparatus; one cannot easily reshape an entire region through military force alone.
The human and economic costs are already materialising. Iran has launched a series of counter-strikes against Israel, U.S. military bases in the region, and military and civilian locations in Arab states that house U.S. forces. Energy markets have seized up; oil shipping traffic has slowed to a near stop in the Strait of Hormuz, while a key international oil price jumped at least 8 percent. For Australia's strategic position in the Indo-Pacific, the paralysis of global energy supplies carries immediate consequences. Disruption to oil markets will ripple through Asia, affecting everything from manufacturing costs to fuel security.
Beneath Herzog's resolute rhetoric, serious questions linger. It remains unclear whether Israel's military actions are guided by any coherent political endgame that is achievable, constructive for Israeli security, and mindful of broader regional stability. Absent such a strategy, the risks of escalation without resolution loom large. Regional powers share this anxiety. Gulf capitals are anxious about what Washington has in mind for an endgame, worrying that the lack of clear strategic objectives augurs a long war that will wreak havoc on the region's security and economies.
There is also the question of what follows if the regime destabilises entirely. If further destabilisation occurs, what might emerge is civil strife, something like civil war, and it's very unlikely that will stay contained within Iran's borders, with these kinds of conflicts in the Middle East unlikely to be contained. Iraq and Syria offer cautionary lessons. Military victory over a state apparatus does not guarantee regional stability; it can produce the opposite.
Herzog's vow of no retreat is politically understandable and may reflect genuine strategic conviction. Yet his declaration assumes that military pressure alone will reshape a region defined by competing empires, proxy networks, and sectarian divisions stretching back centuries. The turning point he describes is real; whether it leads toward the regional peace he envisions, or toward prolonged chaos, remains the question neither Israel nor its American ally has convincingly answered.