Israel should seek out a regional alliance that knits together ties with Greece, Cyprus and India. This is the vision that Israel’s Defense Ministry Director General Maj. Gen. (res.) Amir Baram discussed at the Herzliya Conference at Reichman University on Wednesday.
This is important because it hammers home once again a discussion that has been going on in Israel for years. Israel’s Defense Ministry noted, “Addressing the Herzliya Conference, Baram calls for tailored force buildup, a broader alliance stretching from India through the UAE to Greece and Cyprus, and a new US-Israel security MoU built on hard interests and shared values.”
The concept of linking Israel to the Eastern Mediterranean and also to India via the Abraham Accords countries is one of the key elements of Israel’s regional and global outlook. Warming ties with Greece and Cyprus over the last decade have become a key feature of Israel’s foreign policy. This is not just about diplomatic relations, but also military-to-military exercises and meetings, and also defense exports.
Recent reports in Greece have indicated Athens continues to move forward with developing a strong air defense umbrella. This vision is modeled in some ways on Israel’s integrated, multi-layered air defense concept that has worked so well in recent conflicts.
Vision modeled on multi-layered air defense, planned umbrella defenses
Ekathimerini in Greece noted on Monday that “Greece is moving to secure approval for a major air defense agreement with Israel, with the government seeking the green light for a €3 billion purchase of Israeli-made systems under a planned ‘Achilles’ Shield’ defense umbrella.”
The report added that “the program includes Rafael’s Spyder All-in-One and David’s Sling systems, as well as the Barak MX system developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), according to Greek defense sources.” This comes in the wake of Rafael also selling its Spyder system to Romania.
The origins of Israel’s increasingly close ties to Greece, India and Cyprus go back decades. This has been a slow process, like when you heat up water. However, the long, slow process is now reaching new heights. While Greece and Cyprus ties are growing, Israel-India ties are also being cemented.
The big question mark may relate to where Israel-UAE-Bahrain ties are going. These are Abraham Accords countries. However, the Israel-Hamas War that followed the October 7 massacre and the recent war in the Gulf have added complexity.
The UAE and Gulf states have often been risk-averse on some issues. This doesn’t mean the UAE doesn’t take some risks. It has involved itself in foreign policy initiatives in Yemen, Libya, Sudan, the Horn of Africa and other places. However, the UAE has also felt frustrated by some of these initiatives.
Baram said that the recent “war has sharpened, for every actor in the region, the price of Iran’s military buildup. It has created a shared interest in forging a broader alliance, from India through the UAE to Greece and Cyprus.”
Baram argued that Iran might “accelerate its military buildup.” As such, he argued Israel should prepare via a “new regional architecture, first and foremost with our strategic ally, the United States, and with others.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has voiced support for this for years. He has talked about a new Middle East and also sketched out this connection between Israel and India via the Gulf. The problem for Israel’s leadership is that some optimism before October 7 about ties with Saudi Arabia has shifted.
Riyadh wants to see Israel have more moderate politics and have more engagement with the Palestinians. Riyadh isn’t enamored with the violence in the West Bank, the threats by Israeli officials to attack Syria, or talk of Israel having a conflict with “Sunni” powers such as Egypt in the future. Riyadh is also non-plussed, probably by talk of “settlements” in Gaza.
As such, the idea of a trade corridor via Saudi Arabia and the Gulf to India can’t happen if Israeli leaders prefer conflict to trade. Riyadh will choose to move trade corridors via Jordan and Syria and Turkey or other avenues.
Abraham Accords predicated on stability and peace, not a military alliance
This is always going to be the challenge for Israel in its regional outlook. If we go back to the Abraham Accords and then other regional concepts such as the Negev Forum, the I2U2 (India, Israel, UAE, US) concept and the N7 Initiative; all of this is predicated on stability, integration and peace. It’s not a military alliance.
This is one essential difference between Israel-Greece-Cyprus ties and Israel’s ties with the Gulf and India. India and the Gulf don’t want to be dragged into conflict. Greece and Cyprus may be more open to thinking about defense, because they are concerned about Turkey. Nevertheless, they also must take into account NATO and EU policy in this regard.
Baram had a good point about the need to look more deeply at what every country expects out of these relations. “We cannot afford to judge current American policy through a provincial lens. What some in Israel perceive as weakness or folly, an apparent disregard for every warning sign on the ground, is viewed in Washington as cold, calculated, and clear-eyed risk management in an era of shifting global attention,” he said.
“The difference between us is not in how we understand the threat, but in our priorities: for us, Iran is an existential threat; for the United States, it is a chronic regional challenge, while China and the Indo-Pacific theater remain the core concern. We think Tehran, they think Taiwan.”
Baram correctly believes that Iran’s threats to the Gulf have “created a shared interest in forging a broader alliance, from India through the UAE to Greece and Cyprus. Israel’s strengths in technology, proven operational experience, and defense innovation, combined with the Gulf’s financial power, could enable a new security-economic front,” he said.
“Expanding our strategic partnerships is not a substitute for our partnership with the United States, but it will allow Israel to broaden its room to maneuver and its standing on the international stage, and will allow us to diversify our strategic footing.”
Baram’s strategy discussion illustrates something that has sometimes been sorely lacking. The big picture matters. It also matters what other countries want and how they perceive the situation.
Recent comments by some politicians in Jerusalem have sought to portray Israel as essentially being involved in numerous future conflicts. There is talk about confronting “Sunni” countries, or Syria, Egypt and Turkey. None of this talk helps Israel’s regional and global role.
Most countries don’t want to be involved in endless war, and they don’t necessarily want a partnership with an Israeli “super-Sparta.”
They might prefer a partnership with an Athens, but an Athens before its short-sighted leaders plunged it into the destructive Peloponnesian War.
Athens’ strategy was essentially sound before the war. After the war, Athens declined. Sparta basically disappeared over time. No one who thinks broad strategy wants this as the future.
Smart strategy for Israel envisions broad ties from the Eastern Mediterranean to India. The US is also working on these issues, in terms of working on peace in Libya and also other global issues. It benefits Israel to think about the long-term, as opposed to more conflict in the region.