The false seduction of Netanyahu’s hexagon in the ‘Abrahamic Kingdoms’

Twice this year, PM Benjamin Netanyahu has invoked Israel’s ambition to forge “regional alliances” aimed at confronting what he characterizes as “common threats.”

The first iteration of this vision surfaced just days before the American-Israeli strikes on Iran. Capitalizing on the visit of Indian PM Narendra Modi, Netanyahu unveiled the “hexagon” alliance, a trans-regional architecture encompassing Arab, Asian, and African nations alongside Greece and Cyprus. This was a calculated attempt to construct a cross-continental axis to counter what he termed “radical axes,” a dual reference to the “wounded Shiite axis” led by Iran and its allies, and a “nascent Sunni bloc” beginning to take shape.

The second instance occurred in the crucible of active hostilities, immediately following the deaths of five Israeli troops in a precision operation by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. In that moment, Netanyahu moved beyond mere military rhetoric, reviving the “regional alliance” concept by revealing that certain Arab states had expressed readiness to “fight alongside” Israel.

Most telling was Netanyahu’s attempt to validate this claim by citing his own prior warnings to Arab leaders regarding the so-called “Iranian expansionist project.” He claimed to have cautioned them that Tehran would occupy their land and topple their kingdoms the moment it possesses the capability to do so.

A sowing of discord

Netanyahu’s pronouncements were not merely designed to signal a threat to Iran or to reassure a domestic Israeli audience that they do not stand alone. Rather, they serve a more subversive purpose: to deepen regional fragmentation and drive specific regimes into Tel Aviv’s orbit under the crushing pressure of existential anxiety.

It is through this lens that we must interpret his deliberate use of the term “Kingdoms.” He is not addressing sovereign states so much as he is signaling to regimes preoccupied with the security of their thrones, actors seeking a guarantor of stability, even if that guarantor is a historical adversary.

Unsurprisingly, Netanyahu’s rhetoric coincided with a crescendo of explicit calls from Gulf elites for a formal alliance with Israel. Dhahi Khalfan, the former Dubai police chief and a figure closely aligned with the UAE’s inner circles, took to X with a series of posts urging Gulf states to “deepen cooperation with Israel.”

Khalfan went further, framing the American-Israeli assault on Iran as a mission to “neutralize machines of destruction built for Persian hegemony.” He lauded the “friendly nations” of the West while asserting that there is “absolutely no good” to be found in “neighboring siblings.” Such rhetoric betrays a profound metamorphosis in the consciousness of certain Gulf elites. In this new calculus, the historical enemy is reimagined as a strategic ally, while traditional Arab bonds are discarded in favor of a neighbor with whom we share an inescapable geography and a common destiny.

When Netanyahu first signaled his pursuit of this alliance in late February, Arab capitals met the news with a conspicuous silence, neither confirming nor denying the reports. Today, identifying the “Kingdoms” in question requires little investigative effort. The Gulf states hosting American military bases have, since the onset of the offensive against Iran, become direct targets for Iranian missiles. This exposure has laid bare the fragility of the external “security umbrella” and reignited a fundamental debate over the costs of foreign dependency.

Hardware, intelligence, and “defense normalization”

A survey of the Gulf’s normalization landscape reveals that while only the UAE and Bahrain maintain formal diplomatic ties with Israel, the depth of these relationships has surged far beyond ceremonial representation. They have evolved into integrated security, military, and intelligence ecosystems.

In the Emirati context, security coordination has transitioned from the shadows to an overt, high-velocity track. A milestone in this trajectory was the agreement reached last August between the UAE’s EDGE Group and Israel’s Elbit Systems for the procurement of “Hermes 900” drones. Crucially, the deal involves technology transfer and the partial localization of defense manufacturing.

A report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy observes that Abu Dhabi and Tel Aviv have moved from “diplomatic normalization” to “defense normalization,” a shift with profound implications for the Gulf’s balance of power. According to the analysis, this cooperation is not limited to procurement but extends to the deployment of integrated defense architectures. Israeli firms have supplied the UAE with the “SPYDER” air defense system, followed by the deployment of the “Barak” system on Emirati soil. This is reinforced by joint naval drills, the co-development of unmanned surface vessels, and the participation of Emirati Mirage 2000-9 jets in multinational exercises alongside US and Israeli forces in Greece; a clear testament to the level of operational interoperability achieved between the three parties.

Researcher Elizabeth Dent notes in the same report that this synergy extends into the high-stakes realm of intelligence via the “Crystal Ball” platform. This coordination center focuses specifically on cybersecurity and shared threat assessments, marking the transition of the relationship into a highly sensitive strategic partnership.

Bahrain, host to the US Fifth Fleet, has pursued a parallel track. Security ties with Tel Aviv have been codified since the 2022 visit of then-Defense Minister Benny Gantz. Subsequent reports cited high-ranking Bahraini officials confirming that the Mossad and Shin Bet were actively training Bahraini intelligence officers, facilitating Manama’s deeper integration into Washington-led regional maritime security frameworks.

Regional Divergence

Conversely, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait remain so far outside this burgeoning axis, albeit for diverse reasons. Riyadh remains hesitant to board the “Abrahamic” train, constrained not only by geopolitical calculations but by its moral and religious stature as the leader of the Sunni world. This necessitates a posture of strategic patience, despite persistent American pressure to finalize a deal.

Meanwhile, Muscat, having served as a backchannel mediator between Washington and Tehran, feels betrayed by the transition from diplomacy to military aggression. This led Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi to condemn the assault and explicitly reject normalization frameworks, including the Trump-initiated “Board of Peace.”

For Qatar, whose capital recently witnessed an assassination attempt against Hamas leadership, relations with Tel Aviv remain fraught with tension. Kuwait, meanwhile, remains the most resolute Arab holdout, with both its state institutions and its public maintaining a principled rejection of normalization.

Given these dynamics, “Netanyahu’s Alliance” currently appears limited to the existing Israel-UAE-Bahrain trident, despite relentless efforts to expand the circle through the coercive pressures of war.

The Egyptian prerogative

This is not the first attempt to architect a regional bloc inclusive of Israel. In 2022, the Biden administration, via then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken, attempted to institutionalize the “Negev Summit” to create security committees and an early-warning network against Iran.

While Egypt attended the summit alongside the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco, Cairo was swift to clarify its position. Then-Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry emphasized that Egypt’s presence was not aimed at forming an adversarial alliance, but at revitalizing the peace process and the pursuit of a Palestinian state. This reflected a deep-seated Egyptian wariness of sliding into “suspicious alliances” that would rebrand a primary strategic adversary as a security partner.

With the current escalation, this skepticism has returned to the fore. Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty has repeatedly called for the activation of the Joint Arab Defense Treaty, framing it as the only legitimate vehicle for safeguarding Arab national security. The current crisis has demonstrated that external powers do not offer protection so much as they invite threat.

The US has been unable to insulate its allies from the fallout of its policies, while Israel has never concealed its expansionist designs or its ambition to re-order the region to ensure its own hegemony.

Nevertheless, some Gulf elites remain wedded to the Israeli option, fueled by a perceived “disillusionment” with traditional Arab partners and a misplaced bet on Israeli technological and military supremacy. Yet this gamble is essentially a revival of the failed doctrine of seeking sanctuary with the enemy; a strategy that has historically yielded only instability.

In the shadow of the Iranian threat and the seduction of Israeli protection, some of the region’s “Kingdoms” are drifting toward an alliance defined not by parity, but by outright vassalage. It is a transition wherein Arab subordinate status is merely transferred from American tutelage to direct Israeli oversight.

Betting on military alliances with an adversary possessing documented expansionist ambitions will always be a losing proposition. The only viable alternative remains the construction of an independent, indigenous regional protection umbrella, one that leverages the collective military, economic, and demographic weight of the region, free from the costly illusions of foreign guardianship.