Greater Israel Plan : From Gaza to the Gulf

 Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exploited the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, to target Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, changing the regime of Syria in just 11 days and ultimately Iran — which it considers a greater enemy, under the pretext of national security but also in pursuit of its “Greater Israel” agenda.

Despite ongoing negotiations between Iran and the U.S., and warnings from Saudi Arabia of a possible Israeli strike if no deal was reached, Israel went ahead and launched a barrage of missiles at Iran on the 61st day of the talks.

Even as Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress earlier this year that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence confirmed to lawmakers that Tehran’s Supreme Leader had not reauthorized the dormant nuclear program, even though Iran had enriched uranium to higher levels.

The State of Israel was established in 1948, following the conclusion of the British Mandate over Palestine that had lasted for three decades. Greater Israel doctrine relies on systematically weakening regional rivals.

Since 2015, Israeli leadership has increasingly distanced itself from the idea of a two-state solution. By 2023, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had firmly ruled out any future recognition of Palestinian statehood. Despite Israel’s efforts to block such recognition, by June 2024, 146 of the 193 United Nations member states had formally acknowledged Palestine as an independent state. Israel’s opposition to a two-state framework—combined with its unrelenting military campaign in Gaza since October 7, 2023, and the mounting civilian toll—has drawn sharp criticism, even from some of its closest allies.

Israel has long leveraged its alliance with the United States to assert dominance in the Middle East by influencing Washington’s foreign policy and elections in the U.S. through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC has much influence in U.S. politics. The Israel lobby in the United States comprises billionaires (individuals and groups) who influence the U.S. federal government to serve Israel's interests.

World leaders who have remained in power for more than fifteen years often pursue long-term strategies aimed at expanding territory, weakening rival nations militarily, and fomenting unrest — all to ensure their continued hold on power.

Israel has been asserting that it is attacking Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Yemen for its “right to self-defense” under the guise of a long-term plan to annex into 'Eretz Yisrael' vast areas of neighboring and regional sovereign states. The implementation of "greater Israel" is being seen.

The question remains: is it morally acceptable to conquer other sovereign countries in pursuit of ancient territorial claims?

The concept of Greater Israel has strategic as well as security considerations. Interpretations of "Greater Israel" include the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), the Golan Heights, and even areas beyond current borders, potentially including parts of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and even Egypt.

Netanyahu has consistently supported maintaining Israeli control over the West Bank, with the annexation of some settlements. The State of Israel has existed since 1948, following the end of the 30-year mandate for British administration of Palestine.

In 2003, the U.S. launched a war in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein’s government on the pretext of having links with al-Qaeda and possessing weapons of mass destruction — claims that ultimately proved to be unfounded.

The United States and Israel were against the Bashar al-Assad regime of Syria and backed Ahmed al-Sharaa, who took control of Syria in 11 days, compelling Assad to flee to Russia. U.S. intelligence agencies suspected Assad of storing chemical weapons and were concerned that he might deploy such weapons as a last resort to defend Damascus.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar has defended the Israeli strikes on Syria, saying Israel’s intention had been solely to target suspected chemical weapons sites and long-range rocket sites — to prevent their seizure by armed groups opposed to Israel’s ongoing offensives on its neighbours.

Israel also carried out attacks in Al Mayadin in the east, Tartous and Masyaf in the northwest, at the Qusayr crossing with Lebanon, and the Khalkhalah military airport in the south.

"Israel has a very definite plan that no nation in the region should have weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. One by one it has destroyed all the nations which tried to acquire nuclear capability — starting with Egypt. It has killed several nuclear scientists," Zakir Hussein, a noted geostrategist, said

The Obama administration in 2016 demanded a freeze in settlement expansion, but Netanyahu rebuffed it and went on to build new settlements. Recently, 22 more Jewish settlements were approved in May 2025 in the occupied West Bank — the biggest expansion in decades.

Now, US President Donald Trump is threatening to bring the U.S. military into another Middle East conflict, and Netanyahu is hoping to fulfill the concept of "Greater Israel," which envisions a Jewish state encompassing a larger territory than currently exists.

Earlier, Prime Minister Netanyahu came under fire on social media for holding two maps at the United Nations General Assembly plenum in September 2023. The first was intended to represent the geography of 1948, showing how Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) was alone in the Middle East and had no allies. The second map, which portrayed the year 2023, had seven countries in green — including Israel and Saudi Arabia. It was meant to illustrate how Israel now had friends in the region and how a normalization deal with Saudi Arabia would expand that.

"It attacked Syria. It attacked Saddam Hussein, who was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Syria was also trying to develop nuclear weapons. And now comes Iran. Because Israel thinks if there is any powerful nation, it will not be able to expand and execute its Greater Israel program," Hussein added.

Middle East expert Hussein reiterated, "Israel's greater program extends from Sinai up to Syria and some parts of Saudi Arabia. It is taking the map which existed 2,500 years ago. It is back here to take the land which was promised by God, which they left 2,500 years ago and migrated all over the world. Again, they are back, and the last nail in its plan is Iran."

According to a report in Middle East Monitor 2024, a photograph of an Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldier wearing a “Greater Israel” badge sparked outrage across the Arab world. The badge depicted a vision of Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates — from Medina to Lebanon — incorporating parts of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

While the idea of “Greater Israel” has long existed in Israeli discourse — from Theodor Herzl to the Oded Yinon Plan — the public display of such ambitions, especially amid active conflicts, was seen as inflammatory. The outrage was less about the ideology’s existence and more about its growing normalization in Israeli political and military symbolism.

Netanyahu’s military action, diplomatic moves are increasingly being interpreted as steps toward making that vision a reality.

Canada Acknowledges Khalistani Extremists Targeting India

For the first time, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has acknowledged that Khalistani extremist networks remain active in Canada and plans attacks against India.

Canada’s top intelligence agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), in its latest annual report, has warned that Khalistani extremist networks remain active in Canada and continue to use the country as a launchpad for promoting, financing, and planning violent acts against India.

The report was released following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Canada for the G7 Summit, where he sought to reset ties with Ottawa after two years of strained diplomatic relations between the two countries.

CSIS released its annual report on Wednesday, outlining some key concerns and threats to Canada's national security.

This comes a day after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney "agreed to restore high commissioners in Delhi and Ottawa — a move that signals a potential shift in their strained relationship.

After two years of tensions, India and Canada have agreed to take calibrated steps to resume diplomatic ties and explore areas of cooperation.

In its annual national security threat assessment, CSIS stated: “Khalistani extremists continue to use Canada as a base for the promotion, fundraising, or planning of violence primarily in India.”

Under the section titled "Canada-Based Khalistani Extremism," the report further notes: “Canadian-based Khalistani extremists use Canada as a base to support pro-Khalistani extremism as well as attack planning targeting India. As such, the activities of CBKEs constitute a threat to the security of Canada. However, at present, it is assessed that CBKEs do not have the intent to conduct an attack here in Canada.”

The report also highlighted that individuals and organised networks associated with the Khalistan movement continue to operate within Canadian borders.

Additionally, CSIS identified two key Sikh organisations — Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) and the International Sikh Youth Federation — as being associated with terrorism. Both remain listed as terrorist entities under the Criminal Code of Canada.

CSIS investigates activities that fall under the definition of threats to Canada’s national security, as outlined in the CSIS Act. These include espionage and sabotage, foreign interference, terrorism and violent extremism, and subversion.

Under the section on Risk Assessment Decisions for Violent Political Extremism (2009-02), the report referenced the 2003 charges related to the Air India bombing, which was motivated by Sikh nationalism. Members of Babbar Khalsa and the International Sikh Youth Federation were implicated in the bombing of Air India Flight 182, which was en route from Vancouver to India on June 23, 1985. The Boeing 747 was destroyed at an altitude of 9,500 meters, killing all 329 people on board, including 280 Canadian citizens. It remains the deadliest terrorist incident in Canadian history.

The report also emphasized that politically motivated violent extremism (PMVE) encourages the use of violence to establish new political systems, structures, or norms within existing systems. PMVE actors are involved in planning, financing, and facilitating attacks globally to further their political aims.

Since the mid-1980s, the PMVE threat in Canada has primarily manifested through Canada-based Khalistani extremists (CBKEs) seeking to use violent means to create an independent nation-state, Khalistan, largely within the Indian state of Punjab.

While some Canadians support the Khalistan movement through legitimate and peaceful advocacy — which is not considered extremism — a small group continues to promote, fundraise, or plan violence, primarily targeting India.

Though no CBKE-related attacks occurred in Canada in 2024, their ongoing involvement in violent activities continues to pose a national security threat to both Canada and Canadian interests. Notably, both real and perceived Khalistani extremism originating in Canada continues to drive Indian concerns and foreign interference activities within the country.

Relations between the two nations plunged to historic lows in 2023 during G20 summit in New Delhi after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Indian officials of being involved in the killing of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar. The Trudeau government alleged that India orchestrated the killing, while India denied the claims and, in turn, accused Canada of failing to protect Indian diplomats from Khalistani threats.The diplomatic fallout led to visa suspensions, mutual expulsions of diplomats, and a freeze in trade negotiations.

This breakthrough came during prime Minister Narendra Modi’s discussions with Canada ‘s newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney on the side-lines of the G7-outreach session in Kananaskis, where India was a special invitee.

Modi and Carney reaffirmed their commitment to shared democratic values and sovereignty, and agreed to restore normal diplomatic presence, including the early return of High Commissioners to each other’s capitals, as per the PMO statement.

Both sides underscored the need to resume negotiations on the Early Progress Trade Agreement (EPTA) and take it forward with the objective of concluding a broader Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), as per a press note issued by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

“The Prime Ministers agreed to take calibrated steps to restore stability to this very important relationship. The first of these steps agreed upon was to restore high commissioners to each other’s capitals at an early date,” Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced after the meeting.

Misri also informed that working level mechanisms in a host of areas related to trade, people to people contact, and connectivity” has also been resumed.

Restarting stalled talks on Trade Agreement

The two sides also committed to restarting stalled talks on the Early Progress Trade Agreement (EPTA), aiming ultimately for a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). Visa services, mobility partnerships, and dialogue mechanisms in sectors like clean energy, digital transition, and critical minerals are also back on the table.

Israel Talks Regime Change but Tough to Replace Khamenei

 As military tensions escalate between Iran and Israel, U.S. President Donald Trump has claimed of knowing the exact location of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — after rejecting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal to assassinate him. The discussion on Khamenei has sparked renewed speculation over possible regime change in Iran and the future of its leadership.

Could the fall of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei trigger a seismic political shift? Will Iran’s exiled crown prince Reza Pahlavi re-enter the frame in a post-regime scenario? Who will be Khamenei's successor? As the conflict deepens, the possibility of a leadership vacuum — or even a full-blown regime change — is no longer theoretical.

Trump Abruptly Exits G7

In a rare move, U.S. President Donald Trump left the G7 summit midway — one of the few times in recent history that a U.S. leader has exited a major global forum before its conclusion. Trump insisted he was acting on something “very big.” French President Emmanuel Macron claimed Trump’s departure was tied to ceasefire talks between Israel and Iran. Trump, however, dismissed those reports, cryptically stating that “something very big” was unfolding.

Hours later, Trump issued a stark warning to Tehran, revealing that U.S. intelligence has “precise” knowledge of Ayatollah Khamenei’s location and the ability to strike — but had chosen not to, “at least for now.”

Sources say Trump had just blocked an Israeli operation aimed at assassinating the Supreme Leader — a move Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had reportedly endorsed as a way to decisively end the conflict. Netanyahu told ABC News, “Taking out Khamenei wouldn’t escalate — it would finish this war.”

As per a report, Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz compared Khamenei’s future to that of Saddam Hussein, hinting at a potential collapse of Iran’s ruling elite.

According to a survey by BBC Persian conducted on March 2 of 30 Iranian experts, found that most believe Ayatollah Khamenei’s second son, Mojtaba, is the likely successor to his father. But both Khomeini and Khamenei have opposed hereditary rule, equating it with an illegitimate monarchy.

Iran’s revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — who overthrew the Shah in 1979 — strongly opposed hereditary rule, equating it with an illegitimate monarchy and calling it un-Islamic. He expressed this stance repeatedly in his writings and speeches, compiled in the 21-volume Sahifeyeh Imam Khomeini.

Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini in 1989 has also echoed these views. In multiple public remarks, including a speech in July 2023, he emphasized that “dictatorship and hereditary government are not Islamic.” His statements suggest that handing power to his son could contradict the very principles on which the Islamic Republic was founded.

After Israel launched Operation " The Rising Lion" against Iran and Netanyahu saying that the operation will continue for 14 days, 22 Muslim-majority nations including those who have diplomatic relation with Israel and are at odds with Iran, have warned that continued escalation threatens to ignite a wider regional conflict and destabilize the Middle East.

Contenders who can replace Khamenei

Iran’s Supreme Leader holds near-absolute authority. His departure, by natural death, internal revolt, or foreign intervention, would create a leadership vacuum. If Iran’s clerical system survives, the Assembly of Experts (a body of 88 Islamic scholars) is constitutionally tasked with selecting the next Supreme Leader.

However, a full regime collapse by foreign intervention could throw that entire system into disarray and shift the balance of power toward opposition groups or military actors.

Mojtaba Khamenei

Ayatollah Khamenei’s second son, Mojtaba, is considered a top contender in case of succession. He is closely connected to the Revolutionary Guard and hardline clerics. Many believe he is being quietly positioned for leadership. However, critics argue that any hereditary succession contradicts the Islamic Republic's founding principles, which rejected dynastic rule.

Ayatollah Alireza Arafi

Arafi is a high-ranking cleric who oversees the Qom seminary, Iran’s top religious institution. As a member of both the Assembly of Experts and the Guardian Council, he has deep roots in Iran’s political and religious structures. A conservative figure with loyalty to the regime, he could be a compromise candidate if the system seeks stability.

Sadeq Larijani: A close aide to Khamenei and former head of the judiciary, seen as a potential successor.

Mohsen Araki: A senior cleric and scholar, mentioned as a possible successor.

Ayatollah Hashem Hosseini Bushehri

Bushehri serves as Deputy Chairman of the Assembly of Experts and heads the Qom Seminary Society. He also leads Friday prayers in Qom — a role personally assigned by Khamenei.

Hassan Khomeini

Hassan Khomeini, the reformist grandson of Iran’s revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, potentially representing a more moderate faction.The 43-year-old was deemed by the Guardian Council to lack the required Islamic credentials to help choose the next Supreme Leader.

What If the Entire Regime Falls?

A collapse of the Islamic Republic would open up possibilities for political change far beyond the current power structure. In such a case, figures who have long operated outside Iran’s political system could come to the forefront. It seems bleak, but talks are there

Reza Pahlavi

The son of former Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Reza Pahlavi lives in exile in the United States and has become a leading voice among Iranian opposition movements. He advocates for a secular and democratic Iran.

In a statement on social media, he claimed the Supreme Leader had gone into hiding and lost control of the country. “The end of the Islamic Republic is the end of its war against the Iranian people,” he wrote, calling for national unity and mass mobilization to reclaim the country.

Whether Iran sees a transition within its current theocratic system or undergoes a total political overhaul remains uncertain.

One thing is clear and quite visible: countries where the United States has intervened militarily to bring about regime change — such as Iraq, Libya, and Syria — remain deeply unstable to this day. In Iraq, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion toppled Saddam Hussein but unleashed years of sectarian violence, insurgency, and the eventual rise of ISIS. Libya, after the 2011 NATO-backed ouster of Muammar Gaddafi, plunged into chaos, leading to the emergence of two rival governments — one based in the east, backed by military commander Khalifa Haftar, and another in the West, internationally recognized and based in Tripoli. The country remains divided, plagued by sporadic violence and foreign interference.

Former al Qaeda member Ahmad al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, was named as Syria’s president for a transitional period. Al-Sharaa was the leader of the main militant group that overthrew last year of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whose regime had been in power for several decades, in just 11 days. In Syria, he founded a militant group known as Jabhat al-Nusra (“the Victory Front” in English), which pledged allegiance to al Qaeda, but in 2016, he broke away from the terror group, according to the US Center for Naval Analyses. President Donald Trump also met Syrian President Ahmad in Riyadh and lifted sanctions against Syria.

What remains clear is that externally imposed regime change has rarely delivered stability in the Middle East. The lasting chaos in Iraq, Libya, and Syria serves as a stark reminder. As both Iran and Israel suffer mounting losses, the path forward is perilous — with consequences that could ripple far beyond the region, threatening global security.

 

Canadian PM Mark Carney Needs to Handle Khalistan Issue Diplomatically’

 With Prime Minister Narendra Modi set to attend the G7 summit in Kananaskis from June 15-17, Alberta, at the invitation of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Faisal Ahmed, trade and Geostrategic expert , shares various aspects of PM Modi’s visit to Canada.

Faisal discusses the potential revival of interim trade agreement talks between India and Canada during PM Modi’s visit while also Canada PM Mark Carney may opt to adopt diplomatic approach to address the Khalistani issue with New Delhi. He also emphasized that PM Modi’s  decision of attending the G7 summit signals a shift toward ‘strategic rebalancing’, potentially reviving trade talks and improving India-Canada relations strained over Khalistani issues.”

Considering the growing clout of India across the world, Canada PM Mark Carney may opt for a diplomatic dialogue to resolve Khalistan issue and revive the ties between both the countries that sharply deteriorated following the June 2023 killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen linked to the Khalistan Tiger Force, a group labeled as a terrorist organization by India. Nijjar was gunned down outside a Sikh temple in British Columbia. The situation escalated when the then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged that Indian operatives may have played a role in the assassination. India vehemently denied the claims, calling them unfounded and politically charged. The result was a full-blown diplomatic standoff: both nations expelled senior diplomats, froze trade discussions, and withdrew from bilateral dialogues. It is being speculated that when both the leaders hold bilateral talks, New Delhi may urge Ottawa to act against Khalistani elements in Canada.

Below are the excerpts of the interview:

Q What is the significance of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney inviting Prime Minister Modi for the G7 summit?

It will be a historic visit amid the strained ties between India and Canada. The visit not only solicits India’s voice at G7 summit but also seeks to strengthen the bilateral ties with Canada. In fact, the killing of Nijjar has to do with the inadequacy of law enforcement and internal security in Canada, and blaming India for this was a wrong diplomatic posturing. Carney’s invitation to Modi at least makes it clear that he wants dialogue with India, and that he recognises India’s strong role in international trade and global security.

Q. Could this invitation signal a potential improvement in the strained bilateral relations between Canada and India under Trudeau’s leadership?

Yes, of course. This invitation is a step toward de-escalation of conflict, and would possibly open up a new era characterised by rapprochement between the two countries. Deep-rooted and long-standing issues need to be put onto a systematic process of dialogue and conflict resolution.

Q. What impact could Prime Minister Modi’s attendance have on Canada–India relations and broader diplomatic ties?

The decision by Modi to attend the G7 summit signals a shift toward ‘strategic rebalancing’, one that not only determines global aspirations for India but also lays new avenues for bilateral cooperation in several sectors. it also indicates that both the countries are ready for a dialogue based on mutual trust. Moreover, Modi would firmly assert on ‘strategic autonomy’.

Q. As Canadian opposition leader Pierre Poilievre said it is need to work with India on trade and security, what do you think of the impact of PM Modi’s visit to Canada on trade ties.?

Poilievre stated that it is essential for the Canadian government to work on the security issues. In fact, Modi’s presence could also revive talks on an ongoing interim trade agreement negotiations between India and Canada. It would help create possibilities for a robust India-Canada free trade agreement. Moreover, global and regional security remains a key concern for G7 countries. Therefore, Modi’s say is very crucial and decisive for the G7 countries in ensuring security not only in Eurasia and the Middle East, but also in the Indo-Pacific, and particularly in the Indian Ocean and across the South China Sea.

5. Will PM Mark Carney act on Khalistani elements within Canada and the 26 extradition requests it has submitted to Ottawa over the past decade. Many of these requests involve individuals accused of terrorism or extremist violence, including known figures connected to the Khalistan movement.

Carney would like to handle it diplomatically so that the issue does not overshadows the G7 main agenda. In fact, whether it is extradition request from India or it pertains to Trudeau’s stern stand, Carney would be approaching this issue more pragmatically as he is keen to resolve it by initiating a series of negotiations with a positive frame of mind.