Nine days before Israel's October 27 parliamentary elections, Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a national security doctrine and an accompanying map of regional alignments. The document, produced with the National Security Council, formalizes what has already been practiced: preemptive military action, territorial buffer zones, and the cultivation of non-traditional regional partnerships. The timing is not incidental. Netanyahu is fighting for political survival amid corruption charges, criticism of his October 7 handling, and eroding public trust. The doctrine's core mechanism is fear conversion. By presenting the Middle East as a chessboard of hostile blocs — Iran's axis, a 'Sunni Diamond Alliance' of Egypt, Turkiye, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and a hoped-for 'Hexagon Alliance' centered on Israel and the UAE — Netanyahu frames himself as the only leader who understands the board. Mohanad Hage Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Center identified the strategy precisely: the framework 'incubates and nurtures existential fears' that drive voters toward a familiar strongman. Netanyahu becomes 'the devil you know.' The map itself was originally published in May by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, a German political foundation, making it borrowed intellectual furniture repurposed for domestic consumption. Its most provocative feature is the explicit designation of non-state actors — Sudan's Rapid Support Forces and Haftar's Libyan National Army — as entities within Israel's cooperative alignment. This publicly ties paramilitary groups to Israel, potentially damaging their standing across the Arab world, a cost Netanyahu apparently deems acceptable if it plays well domestically. Netanyahu's proposed 'hexagon of alliances' with India, Greece, Cyprus, and unnamed partners has drawn skepticism from commentators who note that countries like India prioritize non-alignment over ideological blocs. The concept has not been formalized as a binding military pact. Political opponents were blunt: former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot called the doctrine 'two hollow pages, full of slogans,' while former Prime Minister Yair Lapid dismissed it as 'superficial.' The buffer zone logic is the doctrine's most consequential element — and the one already producing real-world destruction. Israel's existing occupations of territory in Gaza and southern Lebanon demonstrate what 'expanding security zones' means in practice. Hage Ali warned that continuing this approach leads to 'more conflict and more ethnic cleansing' under security cover. The doctrine does not grapple with the escalatory cycle this creates; it simply declares the cycle necessary. Netanyahu also introduced a time-pressure argument, warning that 'a president who is extremely hostile to Israel could come to power' in the United States within two years. This reframes dependence on Trump's support as an argument for urgency — Israel must 'expand our network of alliances and develop capabilities' while Washington remains friendly. The subtext is that Netanyahu's personal relationship with Trump is itself a national security asset that only he can maintain. The doctrine's strategic gift to its adversaries is the final irony. By publishing a map that explicitly identifies non-state actors as Israeli-aligned and visualizes Israeli ambitions for regional dominance, Netanyahu has handed Hezbollah and Iran's propaganda infrastructure exactly the evidence they need. Hage Ali noted the map 'will certainly help their propaganda machine.' The document serves Netanyahu's domestic audience at the direct expense of the broader strategic positioning it claims to advance.
