ScheerPost Staff
For decades, the dream of a “Greater Israel” has been treated by its advocates as an inevitable project of regional dominance, sustained by military superiority and unwavering support from Washington. But according to former U.S. Ambassador Chas Freeman, that project may now be colliding with the limits of power itself. In a wide-ranging conversation with political scientist Glenn Diesen, Freeman argues that Israel’s wars in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran have not strengthened its strategic position but instead accelerated its diplomatic isolation, strained its military capacity and eroded the international support on which its ambitions depend.
Freeman’s assessment is stark: what was once presented as a vision of security has produced growing insecurity across the region, while leaving Israel increasingly at odds with allies, neighbors and much of the world. From the collapse of diplomacy to the widening regional fallout of war, he contends that the greatest threat facing the project of expansion may no longer be external resistance alone, but the political and moral consequences of its own actions. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, Freeman offers a sobering warning that the Middle East is entering a new phase—one in which old assumptions about power, alliances and American influence are rapidly unraveling.
Chas Freeman: The Greater Israel Project Is Collapsing
Decades of Expansion Have Reached a Breaking Point
For generations, advocates of a “Greater Israel” envisioned a regional order secured through overwhelming military power, territorial expansion, and unwavering American support. Today, according to former U.S. Ambassador Chas Freeman, that vision is colliding with reality.
In a wide-ranging discussion with political scientist Glenn Diesen, Freeman argued that Israel’s military campaigns across Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Iran have not delivered lasting security. Instead, they have accelerated Israel’s diplomatic isolation, exhausted military resources, and triggered a regional backlash that is reshaping the Middle East.
His conclusion was striking: the greatest threat to the Greater Israel project may not be Iran, Hezbollah, or any external adversary. It may be the political consequences of the project itself.
A Project Losing International Support
Freeman argues that what was once quietly tolerated by Western governments is becoming increasingly difficult to defend.
The devastation in Gaza, the continued expansion of settlements in the occupied territories, military operations in Lebanon and Syria, and the widening regional conflict have dramatically altered global perceptions.
“Israel is at odds with the entire world,” Freeman observed, pointing to growing criticism across Europe, increasing public opposition in the United States, and mounting international scrutiny of Israeli policies.
For decades, Israel relied heavily on diplomatic cover from Washington and its Western allies. Freeman believes that support is eroding faster than many policymakers realize.
The result is a paradox: at the very moment Israel seeks greater regional dominance, it finds itself increasingly isolated.
Security Through Dominance Creates Insecurity for Everyone Else
One of the most important insights from the interview was Freeman’s discussion of what he described as Israel’s pursuit of “absolute security.”
The logic is simple but dangerous.
If one state seeks complete military dominance over all potential rivals, neighboring states inevitably become less secure. Those neighbors then seek new alliances, new military capabilities, and new forms of resistance.
The result is not peace but perpetual conflict.
Freeman echoed a principle often associated with Henry Kissinger: one nation’s quest for total security often creates total insecurity for everyone around it.
This dynamic helps explain why Israeli military operations have increasingly produced regional resistance rather than regional acceptance.
The Iran War Changed the Strategic Landscape
Freeman argued that the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran failed to achieve its core objectives.
Instead of breaking Iranian power, the conflict exposed limits on both Israeli and American military capabilities. Weapons stockpiles were depleted. Regional tensions exploded. Critical shipping lanes became vulnerable. Energy markets were shaken.
Most importantly, Iran survived.
According to Freeman, this reality fundamentally alters the strategic equation.
The dream of removing Iran as the principal obstacle to regional Israeli dominance has become far more difficult than its advocates anticipated.
Meanwhile, Iran has demonstrated that any future conflict would not remain confined to a single battlefield. It would become regional almost immediately.
A New Regional Order Is Emerging
Perhaps the most overlooked portion of Freeman’s analysis concerns the changing geopolitical landscape beyond Israel itself.
He described an emerging regional architecture involving countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran.
While these states have different interests and often competing agendas, they increasingly share a common objective: reducing dependence on outside powers and creating regional security arrangements that are not dictated by Washington.
The old order, built around American military dominance, is showing signs of strain.
A new order is beginning to take shape.
Whether that transformation succeeds remains uncertain, but Freeman believes the trend is unmistakable.
Netanyahu Is Not the Cause—He Is the Symptom
One of Freeman’s most provocative observations concerned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Many critics view Netanyahu as the central architect of Israel’s current trajectory. Freeman disagrees.
Netanyahu, he argued, is not the cause of the crisis but its most visible expression.
The deeper issue is the broad political consensus that has developed around militarized solutions and territorial expansion.
Even if Netanyahu leaves power, many of the underlying assumptions driving Israeli policy would remain.
Removing one leader does not automatically change the direction of a state.
The Failure of Diplomacy
Throughout the discussion, Freeman repeatedly returned to one theme: diplomacy has been abandoned.
Israel, he noted, has relied overwhelmingly on military solutions while offering few meaningful political initiatives capable of resolving regional conflicts.
At the same time, Washington’s credibility as a mediator has steadily deteriorated.
Whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine, or Iran, the United States increasingly struggles to broker agreements that all sides believe will be honored.
The result is a world where military escalation often replaces political negotiation.
That trend, Freeman warned, is extraordinarily dangerous.
A Moment of Reckoning
The interview ultimately posed a larger question than the future of Israel alone.
Can any state maintain security indefinitely through military force while ignoring political reconciliation?
Freeman’s answer is clear.
History suggests otherwise.
From colonial empires to Cold War superpowers, systems built primarily on coercion eventually encounter limits they cannot overcome. Military victories may postpone those limits, but they rarely eliminate them.
The Greater Israel project, Freeman argues, is approaching such a moment.
Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, his warning deserves attention: the future of the Middle East may be determined less by battlefield victories than by the willingness—or inability—of regional powers to replace domination with diplomacy.
If that transformation does not occur, the conflicts now engulfing Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, and the wider region may prove not to be the culmination of a long struggle, but merely the beginning of a far larger one.
Chas Freeman’s substack: https://substack.com/@chasfreeman662157 Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/… Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/ X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen Patreon: / glenndiesen
Editor’s Note: At a moment when the once vaunted model of responsible journalism is overwhelmingly the play thing of self-serving billionaires and their corporate scribes, alternatives of integrity are desperately needed, and ScheerPost is one of them. Please support our independent journalism by contributing to our online donation platform, Network for Good, or send a check to our new PO Box. We can’t thank you enough, and promise to keep bringing you this kind of vital news.
You can also make a donation to our PayPal or subscribe to our Patreon.