Former National Security Advisor Outlines Strategic and Moral Framework for Israel’s Multilateral Regional Conflicts

Former security official Eyal Hulata provides an editorial guide on why Israel is fighting Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, emphasizing reactive defense and AI threats.

By: AXL Media

Published: Apr 2, 2026, 12:47 PM EDT

Source: Information for this report was sourced from The Times of Israel

The Historical Continuity of Existential Threats

Writing ahead of the Passover holiday, Eyal Hulata draws a parallel between the biblical Exodus and the modern challenges facing the Jewish state. He suggests that the contemporary threats from Hamas and Iran are modern iterations of a historical cycle of attempted extermination that has defined the Jewish experience for three millennia. This narrative framing serves to explain the prolonged and forceful nature of Israel’s current military operations to a global audience, characterizing the struggle not merely as a border dispute, but as a necessary effort to ensure the survival of a people who have endured multiple exiles and systematic persecution.

Reactive Defense in Gaza and Lebanon

A central tenet of Hulata’s argument is that Israel did not seek the current wars in Gaza or Lebanon. He points to the catastrophic lack of preparation on October 7, 2023, as definitive proof that an invasion of Gaza was never a pre-existing Israeli objective. Similarly, the conflict with Hezbollah is framed as a direct response to the group joining Hamas’s offensive, followed by further coordinated escalations with Iran in February 2026. In both theaters, the editorial asserts that the Israeli military responded to unprovoked bombardments of its civilian centers, positioning the state's military maneuvers as inherently defensive in nature.

Addressing the Nuclear Threshold in Iran

The conflict has escalated beyond proxy warfare, leading to direct confrontations with the Iranian regime. Hulata highlights Iran’s direct missile attacks in 2024 and the subsequent acceleration of its nuclear weaponization program as the threshold that necessitated a forceful Israeli response. The strategic objective is defined as the degradation of Iran’s missile and proxy capabilities to a level where they no longer pose an existential threat. Furthermore, the piece notes a significant internal divide within Iran, estimating that 80 percent of the Iranian population does not support the ruling Islamic regime, which has brutally suppressed its own citizens.