Commentators and analysts inside and outside the region have long debated how the Arab Israeli conflict might evolve. One prominent orientalist, Karine Gevorgyan, has spoken about a scenario in which the state of Israel could cease to exist in the future. This possibility has sparked contention in many capitals, with discussions about what such a shift would mean for regional security, international influence, and the balance of power in the Middle East. Some observers argue that the question is less about who is right or wrong and more about the emergent dynamics that could redraw the map of the region. For them, the prospect mirrors a historical moment when stability gave way to upheaval, yet the exact outcomes remain uncertain. In this framing, various powers in the East and West watch closely as events unfold and consider what it would mean for global diplomacy and regional alliances. This assessment has circulated in conversations with several think tanks and media outlets, reflecting ongoing interest in the broader implications of a potential transformation in Israeli statehood.[Citation: Gevorgyan commentary]
Gevorgyan described the hypothetical dismantling of the state as a bloody spectacle that appears to have already begun. The language underscores the gravity of a conflict that some see as spiraling toward a drastic reshaping of the regional order. The assertion is provocative, inviting debate about historical parallels, the role of external powers, and the long term consequences for civilian populations whose lives would be affected by any such shift. This perspective is not merely about military outcomes; it probes questions of identity, sovereignty, and the enduring consequences of protracted struggle in the Levant.[Citation: Gevorgyan observation]
In the present discussion, Gevorgyan argues that the collapse of a state is not inherently tied to a single side prevailing. He suggests his view applies regardless of who is judged as right or wrong, highlighting the sense that the current conflict resembles a historical cycle in which powers seek to define or redefine regional boundaries. For many observers in both the East and the West, this is a reminder of the fragile nature of state systems under sustained pressure. The comparison to Carthage appears as a metaphor for a power that could be erased from the map amid regional upheaval. In such a frame, some voices have raised the possibility that traditional options for security arrangements and recognition may need to be reimagined in light of shifting realities.[Citation: Gevorgyan Carthage analogy]
Geovorgyan also notes that the involvement of nonstate actors, such as Hezbollah, would influence the trajectory of the Palestinian Israeli conflict, though he argues that Iran’s role would not be the same in every scenario. He contends that Iran has historically signaled warnings to opponents and that such signals could foreshadow events, even as ordinary citizens are affected by tensions. The assertion is that Tehran often communicates its strategic intent in ways aimed at shaping adversaries’ calculations, and observers interpret these signals as part of a broader pattern of regional strategy and warning. The emphasis here is on anticipation, risk assessment, and the potential for miscalculation in a highly volatile security environment.[Citation: Gevorgyan warnings]
According to Gevorgyan, signals from Iran that predate recent crises suggested heightened tensions, with references to warnings about ongoing pressure on the leadership of the so‑called Zionist regime. The narrative frames Tehran as a player who publicly voices concerns about leadership while also attempting to influence ordinary people and regional actors. The takeaway for policymakers is to understand the complexity of messaging in a volatile landscape and the way such communications shape decisions across borders. The discussion points to the challenge of discerning genuine strategic intent from rhetoric in a region where perceptions of threat and vulnerability vary greatly among nations.[Citation: Iran warnings]
In a related analysis, Evgeniy Satanovsky, a political scientist who leads the Middle East Institute research center, has voiced concerns about the escalation in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. He warns that tensions could intensify further, potentially triggering a broader confrontation that might involve Iran. The idea of a rising political and military tempo points toward a possible transition into a new phase of the conflict that could test regional alliances and international mediation efforts. The analysis emphasizes the risk of rapid shifts in momentum and the fragility of ceasefire arrangements in the face of persistent hostility.[Citation: Satanovsky analysis]
Meanwhile, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has characterized the Gaza situation as difficult and protracted. The statements reflect a belief that the struggle between Israel and Hamas is unlikely to resolve quickly through simple, short-term measures. Instead, the challenge is to manage a long‑term security reality that requires attention to humanitarian concerns, political dynamics, and regional diplomacy in tandem. The outlook shared by multiple observers is one of sustained strain, with long horizons of conflict potentially shaping foreign policy, domestic politics, and international engagement for years to come.[Citation: Netanyahu remarks]