MADRID – The attacks of October 7, 2023 were much more than just an episode in the long-running Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It was a seismic event that shattered the foundations of the existing regional order and triggered a series of developments that redefined alliances, security principles, and balances of power.
By mid-October, few in Tehran could have predicted that the sounds of gunfire in Gaza would resonate so strongly in Iranian geopolitics. As several analysts have noted, “The Middle East that existed before October 7 no longer exists.” Since that day, the region has moved from an order seeking normalization under the U.S. umbrella to a more multipolar and unstable situation defined by competition between local actors.
At the center of this new geopolitical commission is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The nation is undergoing a complex readjustment process to protect its influence and national security in a fundamentally changed environment, following a major readjustment of its “forward defense” strategy.
Collapse of previous paradigms: Beyond normalization
Before October 7, the prevailing trajectory in the region, promoted by Washington and accepted by several Arab capitals, was toward gradual normalization with Israel. The Abraham Accords set aside the Palestinian issue and sought to build a Sunni-Israeli axis to counter the Iranian-led axis of resistance. But Operation Al-Aqsa Storm and the subsequent disastrous Israeli military operation in Gaza shattered that narrative.
The Arab-Israeli normalization process is currently stalled. U.S. efforts to revive the Gaza Strip through a ceasefire in Gaza are colliding with reality. Israel’s actions since October 7, from its occupation of Syria to its 12-day war with Iran to its attack on Qatar, have created deep mistrust of Tel Aviv among Arab capitals.
The Palestinian issue has resurfaced with unprecedented global intensity. Images of the devastation in Gaza decisively undermined Israel’s international legitimacy, changing the perception of Israel from a historical victim to an occupying force using disproportionate force. Although the two-state solution remains incomplete and not fully realized, it continues to be invoked internationally as a framework for addressing Palestinian self-determination and ending the occupation. Solidarity with the Palestinian cause resonates beyond the Islamic world and across Western societies, with civil, academic, and youth movements increasingly taking it up as a matter of global justice and ethical responsibility.
Meanwhile, the response of Western governments, seen as complicit or passive, exposed double standards that undermined the moral authority of Washington and Brussels and accelerated the search for alternatives among Arab states. As a result, threat perceptions in the Arab world have been reshaped, with Iran no longer seen as the main source of instability, while Israel has emerged as the most pressing existential threat to the Palestinian cause and Arab dignity.
New doctrine in Iran and Israel
In response to this environment, Israel adopted significant doctrinal changes. Traditional deterrence strategies based on traditional superiority and punitive strikes have evolved into what can be called the principle of “strategic confinement.”
This approach aims to put continuous pressure on the resistance’s entire infrastructure. It targets senior leaders as well as mid-level executives, ideologues, technologists, and financiers, forcing the pillars of the system to focus their energies on simply surviving. War of attrition moves from the battlefield to the organizational consciousness, aiming at strategic paralysis through exhaustion.
For Iran, October 7 and Israel’s new doctrine represent a major strategic challenge. The cornerstone of the country’s security policy has long been a “forward defense” strategy based on allies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Yemeni army and Iraqi militias. This model has allowed Iran to project power and maintain a credible deterrent without starting a direct conflict on its own territory.
However, recent events have tested the limits of this framework. Iran is being drawn into direct confrontation with Israel, a scenario it has long sought to avoid. Operations such as “True Promise,” which involved coordinated strikes by drones and ballistic missiles, marked the point of no return and demonstrated deterrence and deterrence without escalating to full-scale war.
At the same time, advanced defense networks have revealed operational strains and vulnerabilities. Hezbollah has suffered a decline in leadership, and political changes in Syria have partially reduced Tehran’s strategic depth. But these challenges haven’t stopped key allies. Hezbollah, in particular, has demonstrated resilience and gradual reconstruction, strengthening its military capabilities and maintaining its central role in regional deterrence.
These dynamics highlight the complexity of Iran’s challenge and the need for a comprehensive approach. This strategy combines maintaining credible deterrence across all options with efforts to strengthen economic stability and expand international integration. At the same time, the Iranian government continues to readjust its strategy, strengthen its allies, maintain power projection, and balance risks and opportunities in a highly volatile environment.
Despite Israeli aggression and external pressure, the axis of resistance has not disappeared and will never disappear. Its strength lies not only in its military power but also in the anti-colonial narrative it embodies, which continues to resonate in the region and solidify its political and strategic legitimacy. Far from weakening, the Resistance is adapting, rebuilding, and maintaining its role as a central figure in the regional balance.
Diplomatic readjustment and regional strategy
The Islamic Republic of Iran faces a supreme strategic crossroads. The shadow of repeated conflicts looms over national security, while economic pressures threaten to limit maneuverability. This situation is forcing the Iranian government to develop more creative and adaptive strategies to protect its influence and security in a highly complex environment.
Amid this confluence of pressures, Iran’s strategic realignment is unfolding along multiple lines. On the diplomatic front, Iran has increased its engagement with the Persian Gulf monarchies, culminating in joint naval exercises with Saudi Arabia that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Beyond ideological differences, there is an implicit recognition that geography imposes a need for coexistence and stability. This approach reflects Riyadh’s recognition that regional stability is a priority in pursuing Vision 2030 and that any attempt to normalize relations with Israel must first consider stable relations with Tehran.
Historically, Tel Aviv has sought to weaken and constrain Iran’s inability to exert regional influence. However, West Asian capitals have come to understand that Iran remains an important strategic counterbalance. Tehran’s absence as a regional power would remove important checks on Israel’s hegemonic ambitions and dangerously destabilize the regional balance of power.
A new regional order is inevitable
West Asia after October 7 will look fundamentally different. It is fragmented, multipolar and characterized by competition between increasingly capable local actors. While US hegemony and the Arab-Israeli normalization process have lost centrality, Iran maintains its role as an important deterrent in the region.
The strategic tension between maintaining advanced deterrence options and promoting economic and diplomatic stability reflects the challenges defining Iran’s position in this new phase. The future configuration of regional security will depend on Tehran’s ability to balance influence, deterrence, and diplomacy.
Regional boards have been redesigned. The era of normalization under US hegemony will give way to competitive multipolarity, where resistance, deterrence, and calculating diplomacy will shape West Asia’s trajectory.