The “unity of the arenas” concept emerged at the beginning of the ongoing war on the Gaza Strip following the al-Aqsa Flood operation on October 7, 2023, signifying the involvement of various factions and armed groups in the region in support and solidarity with Palestinian factions against Israel. This approach aimed, on one hand, to highlight the interconnectedness of these factions across the region and, on the other hand, to disperse Israeli military efforts across multiple fronts. Additionally, each faction had its own internal calculations for engaging in the escalation witnessed in the region. The primary outcome of this approach was a series of ramifications, particularly the opening of multiple battlefronts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Moreover, it contributed to the increasing militarization of international power dynamics in the Red Sea, driven by Houthi involvement in the ongoing escalation, along with negative repercussions for the countries entangled in these conflicts.
Notably, after approximately sixteen months of war in Gaza and regional escalation, Israel—supported both directly and indirectly by the previous and current US administrations—has operated on three main levels. First, it sought to dismantle the “unity of the arenas” strategy adopted by armed factions in the region. Second, it turned this principle into a pressure tool against Palestinian factions. Third, it attempted to replicate this strategy by opening multiple fronts in cooperation with the United States across the Middle East. This was evident in the renewed war on Gaza, alongside unprecedented escalation in the West Bank, Israeli expansions in Syria, recent Israeli attacks on southern Lebanon, and significant US strikes on the Houthis in recent days.
I. Levels of Israeli-American engagement with the “Unity of the Arenas” Strategy
Regardless of the assessment of its direct military outcomes, the “unity of the arenas” principle has proven costly for Israel on multiple levels. This is particularly evident in the increased cost of Israeli escalations in Palestinian territories and the strain placed on Israel’s security system, especially in handling threats posed by ballistic missiles and drones. This led to the collapse of the social contract between the Israeli government and its citizens, historically built on the promise of security and the deterrence of external threats, leading to growing domestic unrest. Additionally, Israel has borne significant economic costs due to this multi-front escalation, which has also severely disrupted its military operations.
Given these negative repercussions—along with the impact on maritime navigation in the Red Sea following Houthi escalations—the United States, alongside Israel, adopted a multi-layered approach to counter the “unity of the arenas” strategy. The key features of this approach can be outlined as follows:
1. Dismantling the “Unity of the Arenas” Principle: Before the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hezbollah was signed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited three reasons for engaging in ceasefire talks with Hezbollah, namely focusing on Iran, replenishing military supplies while allowing the army to rest, and isolating Hamas. Reflecting a shared objective between the United States and Israel, then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that the agreement between Hezbollah and Israel “will make Hamas know that it can’t count on other fronts opening up in the war.”
In pursuit of this objective, Israel and the United States have taken various measures to dismantle the “unity of the arenas” strategy. This included Israeli military strikes against key targets linked to the so-called Axis of Resistance, alongside US diplomatic efforts that effectively worked to neutralize various fronts—such as pressuring the Iraqi government to rein in factions operating in Iraq, facilitating a ceasefire agreement in Lebanon, and shaping a strategic response to Houthi escalation in Yemen. Notably, the United States has approached the ongoing regional tensions with a strategy aimed at isolating and neutralizing different fronts across the Middle East, ensuring that the conflicts do not converge into a unified regional escalation.
2. Unwavering US Support for Israel: A cornerstone of dismantling the “unity of the arenas” strategy has been the United States’ steadfast alignment with Israel. This has been reflected in several defining features. First, the United States has fully aligned itself with Israel’s declared war objectives, whether in Gaza or in countering what Israel describes as “existential threats,” or, as Netanyahu put it, “changing the face of the Middle East,” referring to Israel’s multi-front escalation in the region. Second, Washington has provided unwavering and unconditional support for Israel, ensuring all necessary political, military, and economic backing to sustain the war. Third, this support has included unprecedented military aid, with the deployment of numerous warships and the use of US military bases in the region to help repel attacks against Israel. Fourth, the United States has been directly involved in the ongoing escalation, evident in its strikes against Iran-aligned factions in Iraq, its sustained targeting of Houthi positions in Yemen, and its announcement of the “Prosperity Guardian” coalition in the Red Sea in December 2023. Lastly, the United States played a diplomatic role in brokering a ceasefire in Lebanon, which effectively dismantled the unified stance between Hezbollah and Palestinian factions.
3. Increasing the Cost of Escalation for Armed Factions: Israel has also sought to dismantle the “unity of the arenas” by significantly raising the costs of participation for regional factions. This has been evident in its extensive target list, eliminating high-ranking leaders from factions involved in the escalation, particularly Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. These assassinations culminated in the killing of former Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and former Hamas leader and mastermind of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Yahya al-Sinwar. Alongside these assassinations, Israel has systematically destroyed large portions of the military and infrastructure assets of these factions, significantly weakening their operational capabilities. Beyond military actions, Israel has also sought to incite public discontent within faction strongholds, aiming to turn local populations against these groups. By prolonging conflicts and intensifying economic and security pressures, Israel has attempted to erode public support for these factions, further isolating them on the regional and international stage.
II. Indicators and Dimensions of the Current Israeli-American Escalation
Several indicators have emerged, collectively reflecting a multi-front Israeli-American escalation in the region, as evidenced by the following:
1. Resumption of the Israeli War on Gaza: On March 18, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the resumption of the Israeli war on Gaza, resulting, by the time this paper was written, in the death of around 700 Palestinians and the injury of hundreds. This move followed a series of tactical maneuvers, including raising demands, setting new conditions, and reneging on commitments related to advancing to the second phase of the agreement reached with the mediators and the Palestinian side. In the context of the resumption of the Israeli war on Gaza, several key features were noticeable.
First, Netanyahu responded to the threats issued by US President Donald Trump on March 6, 2025, towards Hamas, demanding the immediate release of all hostages or there would be “all hell to pay.” Second, he accepted the proposal from US envoy Steve Witkoff to extend the first phase and, subsequently, blamed Hamas for the collapse of the ceasefire agreement. Third, he secured the cohesion of his extremist right-wing coalition with the return of Itamar Ben-Gvir to the government, which supported his plans, particularly regarding the passage of crucial legislation, including the 2025 national budget law, scheduled for a vote before the end of the month.
On the military front, the Israeli army began its operations with intense, large-scale airstrikes across Gaza. The Israeli military also sought to expand what it refers to as “safe zones” in Gaza, particularly the Philadelphi Corridor, the border fence, the Netzarim Axis, and the buffer zones between Gaza Envelope settlements and the northern areas. The day after the airstrikes began, the Israeli army announced the commencement of ground operations at multiple levels within the sector, starting from the northern areas, moving through the Netzarim Axis, and reaching the southern regions. Therefore, Israeli ground operations have been taking place across the entire Strip, in parallel with intensifying airstrikes.
2. Ongoing Israeli Operations in the West Bank: Several Israeli security officials announced in early February 2025 the continuation and expansion of military operations in the West Bank. These operations, which have been underway for over three months, particularly in the Jenin, Nur Shams, Faraa refugee camps, and towns in the northern West Bank, culminated in an Israeli security cabinet decision on March 23, 2025, to separate 13 settlement neighborhoods in the West Bank occupied by Israel from neighboring settlements. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich described this as “an important step toward imposing Israeli “sovereignty” over settlements.”
The operation involved the Kfir Brigade (an infantry unit), four Border Police battalions, undercover units, elite forces, and military engineering units. It was coordinated with the Israeli Security Agency (Shabak) and supported by the Israeli Air Force, which deployed military helicopters, fighter jets, and drones to provide air cover for the ground troops. This operation is considered the largest of its kind in the West Bank since Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. The operation also led to the displacement of thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank camps. Notably, these Israeli operations are driven by Israel’s efforts to align with the US stance on annexation plans for the West Bank, following the green light from the United States to resume the war and support for proposals to forcibly relocate the Palestinian population.
3. Israeli Efforts to Cement Military Presence in Syria: Following the ousting of Bashar al-Assad on December 8, 2024, by a coalition of armed factions, Israel adopted a multi-dimensional approach to deal with the new reality in Syria. This approach is best illustrated by Israel’s devastating strikes on Syrian military infrastructure, which resulted in the destruction of Syria’s strategic weapons. Israel also took control of the buffer zone separating the occupied Golan Heights from Syrian territory, seized Mount Hermon, which holds strategic importance, and expanded its influence in several villages in the southern region. Just last week, Israel launched heavy airstrikes on Damascus, Daraa, the Tadmur military airbase, and several other key sites.
Israel’s strategy towards Syria seems to pursue a set of strategic objectives. The first is to exploit the ousting of Assad and the resulting security vacuum and collapse of Syrian state institutions, in order to promote a narrative of the collapse of the 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria, while seeking to increase Israeli-controlled territory in Syria, either through direct military presence or firepower, which restricts civilian movement and prevents forces aligned with the new administration from operating in the south. Second, Israel worked to prevent pro-Iranian and Hezbollah-affiliated cells from reactivating within Syria. Third, it targeted and dismantled any presence of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the country. Fourth, Israel sought to secure intelligence and logistical advantages by asserting control over Mount Hermon, where it established military outposts, surveillance units, and intelligence facilities at the mountain’s peak. Fifth, it aimed to redefine the rules of engagement in a way that granted Tel Aviv greater flexibility to conduct preemptive strikes against military targets inside Syria without resorting to large-scale ground operations, as part of its broader deterrence strategy.
4. Violation of the Ceasefire Agreement in Lebanon: Israeli violations of the ceasefire agreement with Hezbollah in Lebanon have been striking, with several indicators pointing to these breaches. The first was the violation of the humanitarian protocol outlined in the agreement. The second was the execution of multiple strikes on positions in southern Lebanon. The third was Israel’s refusal to withdraw from critical points in southern Lebanon, including the Labbouneh area opposite the Shlomi settlement, Jabal Blat opposite the Zar’it settlement, a position on Jal El Dib opposite the Avivim settlement, and the Finger of Galilee near el-Hamames, and the area opposite the Margaliot and Kiryat Shmona settlements.
In a related context and as part of a significant escalation in recent days, Israel began, on March 22, a series of attacks and strikes carried out by the Israeli army targeting numerous sites both south and north of the Litani River, reaching as far as the Beqaa region. These actions resulted in dozens of deaths and injuries. Additionally, various Israeli military and engineering vehicles crossed the technical fence and conducted excavation work in the Qatamon Valley (on the outskirts of the town of Rmeish). Furthermore, Israeli infantry forces were deployed within these Lebanese territories, in violation of Resolution 1701 and the ceasefire agreement.
5. US Escalation against the Houthis: US President Donald Trump stated that he had ordered the military to carry out strikes against the Houthi group in Yemen on Saturday, March 15, warning them of the consequences if their attacks do not cease. In a social media post, Trump declared, “We will use overwhelming lethal force until we have achieved our objective.” In line with this stance, the US military had already launched several precision strikes against the Houthis in Yemen by the time this paper was written. Notably, Israeli newspapers Yedioth Ahronoth and The Jerusalem Post reported that the United States had requested Israel refrain from conducting airstrikes like those previously carried out by the Israeli Air Force in Yemen, effectively leaving the handling of the Houthi threat to the United States. This move appears to underscore American backing and coordination with Israel on the Yemeni front.
Overall, these targeted US strikes—many of which hit broad segments of the Houthis’ infrastructure and leadership—cannot be separated from the Trump administration’s broader approach toward the Yemeni group. This approach is rooted in a “maximum pressure” policy, which extends beyond sanctions to include an unprecedented level of military pressure. This American action also comes at a time when the Houthi front remains the only one actively engaged in escalation against Israel in the region. Other fronts have subsided: Iraqi factions have pulled back, groups previously active in Syria—particularly in the Golan—have been neutralized, and Hezbollah has been constrained by the ceasefire agreement. Furthermore, the United States appears to be leveraging this escalation against the Houthis as a means of exerting pressure on Iran.
6. Threat of Escalation against Iran: On March 21, 2025, the American news site Axios reported that Israel had informed the United States that “Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, and this cannot be overlooked.” This coincided with reports—cited by the Hebrew Walla news outlet—about an upcoming US-Israeli meeting in the coming days focused on Iran’s nuclear program. Israel will reportedly be represented in the meeting by Minister of Strategic Affairs of Israel Ron Dermer and National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi. Previous US reports noted that President Donald Trump had sent a message to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, warning, “if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing,” while also offering to ease sanctions if Tehran cooperates. The current regional context—marked by a shared American-Israeli desire to curb Iranian influence and reshape regional deterrence dynamics—appears to be driving momentum toward possible escalation against Iran, particularly since, according to some Israeli assessments, the remaining elements of Iran’s regional axis are limited to the Houthi threat and Iran’s nuclear program.
Given the preceding context and considering the concept of the “unity of the arena” as an expression of coordinated patterns of escalation against a common target or adversary to achieve certain strategic objectives, it can be said that a form of practical US-Israeli replication of this approach is currently underway. In this regard, several key observations can be made:
- The United States and Israel initially focused on dismantling the “unity of the arenas” principle adopted by the so-called “Axis of Resistance” at the beginning of the war, using both maximum military pressure and US-led diplomatic efforts as this context proved highly costly for both Israel and the American presence in the region.
- The concept of “asymmetric warfare” is clearly reflected in the current U.S.-Israeli escalation in the region. This concept refers to a type of conflict involving opposing parties that differ significantly in terms of legal status, legitimacy, and standing within the international system, as well as in their presence on the ground and the strategies they employ.
- The current US escalation against the Houthis in Yemen is, in one way or another, closely linked to Israel’s escalation in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as to the consolidation of Israeli military presence in Syria and efforts to replicate this model in strategic areas of southern Lebanon—all tied to a common goal: curbing Iranian influence and neutralizing sources of threat to the Israeli state.
- Regardless of calculations of victory or defeat—which remain highly unclear amid the ongoing war and regional escalation—while the so-called Axis of Resistance has sustained significant losses, Israel and the United States have also incurred strategic setbacks. Nevertheless, both countries have effectively managed to dismantle the principle of the “unity of the arenas” and have since moved toward settling unresolved fronts and outstanding issues, such as the Houthi front—and potentially, in the future, the Iranian issue.
- The aforementioned factor will have implications for the Gaza front and the Palestinian territories more broadly, as Israel seeks to capitalize on the unwavering support of the current US administration and the retreat of the Axis of Resistance to advance a set of strategic objectives. These include the potential partial or complete implementation of displacement proposals, the neutralization of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and the establishment of a form of sustained Israeli military presence in the Gaza Strip, in addition to plans to annex parts of the West Bank. However, these Israeli ambitions face significant obstacles, chief among them the firm and consistent Egyptian (and broader Arab) opposition to such proposals, as well as challenges arising from internal instability and unrest within Israel itself.
