There is no doubt that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not have a real clear plan for "the day after" the Gaza war. But ultimately, who truly has a plan? The answer: Iran. Netanyahu is rightly criticized for the ongoing military operations lacking a specific goal that, when achieved, could declare "victory"; this transforms the war into an open massacre seeking to inflict maximum pain and destruction on the Palestinians. Netanyahu lacks a clear vision for post-war Gaza, neither regarding the necessary humanitarian steps nor about governance and administration in the enclave. Moreover, his government's settlement policies in the West Bank confirm that he is leading a coalition opposed to the principle of a Palestinian state itself and to the essence of the Palestinian national project.
What highlights this is his three-stage plan to achieve autonomy in Gaza by 2035 after its reconstruction and integration into the regional economy. This proposal cannot be seen as anything more than a public relations game, devoid of any real political substance concerning the legitimate rights of Palestinians to statehood, sovereignty, and self-determination.
This is all true. However, just like Netanyahu, his critics within Israel's military and political institutions do not possess serious ideas regarding "the day after." Military Council member Minister Benny Gantz failed to turn his resignation into a real turning point in the course of the war, or to lead public opinion with a clear vision for addressing long-term challenges. The man vanished as if he never existed. The political opposition, and its leader Yair Lapid, have so far provided only legitimate critiques and accurate, systematic revisions of Netanyahu without offering any objective alternatives.
The most glaring lack of a "day after" plan is evident in U.S. President Joe Biden's weak, wavering, and completely detached policy from the realities on the ground. Biden swings between his historical support for Israel and the escalating tensions between him and Netanyahu. Pressured by the electoral clock to end the Gaza war, he forgets that he is dealing with the longest war in Israel's history in the region. He is troubled by the voice of angry Arab voters who hold him accountable for not stopping the gunfire. His concern is compounded by the growing contradiction between him and the young liberal base in the Democratic Party. But he clashes with the reality that these are the least concerns for Netanyahu and Yahya Sinwar, who, for different reasons, are investing in prolonging the war rather than shortening it.
The rapid failure of the White House's plan to resolve the conflict has revealed that the U.S. under Biden is even unable to enforce a ceasefire. More dangerously, it has exposed the naivety of the American approach towards strategic balances and shallow understanding of the causes and dynamics of the ongoing conflict.
If the continuation of military operations in Gaza lacks clear political objectives, then insisting on a ceasefire without a political horizon, the capability, and the will to change the equation in Palestine and Israel will only gift "Hamas" a victory, albeit an illusory one, that lays the foundation for future cycles of violence.
An immediate ceasefire in Gaza is an urgent humanitarian need, but achieving it should not lead to counterproductive outcomes that entrench the militias' control over the Palestinian national project for reasons unrelated to the Palestinians themselves. "Hamas" has not paid all these costs to abandon its project after a ceasefire and suddenly reconcile with other Palestinians or become a component of stability in the region. On the contrary, it is strategically maneuvering to maintain its influence in Gaza, subsequently extending it to the West Bank, advancing its military capabilities, and deepening its involvement in the Iranian axis.
The American naivety that assumes the path to a two-state solution passes through an impromptu ceasefire and some sort of understanding between "Hamas" and Netanyahu's government reflects a superficial understanding and a frightening disregard for Iran's role in the dynamics of the conflict and Tehran's insistence on destroying every realistic avenue towards achieving peace and integration in the Middle East.
Iran's role in sabotaging peace attempts is not merely a tactical policy regarding the cultivation of its influence; it is an ideological project with a specific vision for the Middle East and its relationships and power balances.
The simplest statement in this war is that Netanyahu does not have a clear plan for "the day after" the war. But does any entity have a plan that goes beyond stopping the atrocities without making that a victory for "Hamas"? Without a comprehensive post-war plan that addresses governance, reconstruction, and security in Gaza and the West Bank, alongside a plan to address Iranian influence in the region, it is likely that cycles of violence and instability will continue, undermining long-term peace efforts.
The stark truth is that Iran alone has a plan for "the day after," and its plan is to leave the region trapped in a perpetual state of conflict.
