Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has unveiled what he describes as a transformative geopolitical initiative: a “hexagon” of regional alliances designed to counter both a “radical Shia axis” led by Iran and an “emerging radical Sunni axis”. Announced during a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, the proposed framework would link Israel more closely with India and Mediterranean partners such as Greece and Cyprus, alongside a number of unnamed Arab, African and Asian states.
Netanyahu argues that this integrated system would complement Israel’s longstanding strategic partnership with the United States, strengthening its diplomatic reach and reinforcing its long-term security. The initiative, he suggested, reflects a changing regional order in which Israel must build overlapping networks of cooperation rather than rely solely on Washington.
The timing of the announcement is significant. It comes ahead of an official visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is scheduled to address the Knesset, visit Yad Vashem and participate in an innovation-focused event in Jerusalem. Netanyahu, who has often described Modi as a personal friend, said their discussions would centre on deepening economic, diplomatic and security ties.
For latest news and analyses on Middle East, visit: Yello! Middle East
At the heart of the bilateral agenda lies technology. Both governments have emphasised cooperation in artificial intelligence, quantum computing and advanced high-tech manufacturing. Netanyahu has framed the partnership as a means of positioning Israel and India as global leaders in next-generation innovation, while Modi has publicly praised what he calls a relationship built on trust, shared democratic values and technological ambition.
Yet the “hexagon” vision extends far beyond economics. It is rooted in a hard security doctrine forged during one of the most turbulent periods in Israel’s recent history. Over the past year, Israel has been involved in military operations across multiple fronts, targeting actors linked to Iran in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Israeli officials argue that these campaigns have inflicted substantial damage on Tehran’s regional network, including Hezbollah and the Houthis.
However, Netanyahu has also drawn attention to what he calls an “emerging radical Sunni axis”. While he stopped short of naming states directly, Israeli political discourse has increasingly pointed towards Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as a growing strategic challenge. Relations between Ankara and Jerusalem have deteriorated sharply over the war in Gaza, with Erdoğan delivering fierce public criticism of Israeli military operations.
Former prime minister Naftali Bennett recently described Turkey as the “new Iran”, urging Israeli policymakers to prepare for simultaneous confrontation with both Tehran and Ankara. This framing suggests that Israel’s strategic anxieties are no longer confined to the traditional Iran-led Shia alliance but now encompass Sunni Islamist currents as well.
The proposal has drawn immediate criticism from Hamas. Spokesperson Hazem Qassem condemned the “hexagon” as a hegemonic project designed to entrench Israeli dominance while marginalising Palestinian rights and aspirations for statehood. He warned that such a bloc would deepen polarisation across the Arab world rather than foster stability.
Regional realities complicate Netanyahu’s design. Several Sunni-majority states, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have in recent months coordinated diplomatic efforts critical of Israeli military conduct. Prospects for Saudi-Israeli normalisation, once buoyed by quiet negotiations, appear increasingly remote amid continuing conflict in Gaza.
Analysts have greeted the “hexagon” with scepticism. Some describe it as a branding exercise rather than a concrete diplomatic architecture. A formal NATO-style pact, they argue, is improbable given divergent national interests and competing geopolitical calculations. While Greece has significant defence ties with Israel, it has been pursuing cautious rapprochement with Turkey.
India is also well known for its pragmatism in foreign relations. New Delhi’s civilisational links and energy ties with Iran are well known. It also enjoys excellent ties with most states in the Gulf. Therefore, it is unlikely to invest deeply in any sort of rigid bloc politics in the Middle East, and will be keen to keep its strategic autonomy and diversified partnerships. Despite deep ties in the defence and technology sectors with Israel, India might not be keen to commit to any confrontational frameworks.
Netanyahu is also eyeing his domestic audience while talking up the alliance. He faced significant political challenges at home, facing corruption charges, criticism over judicial reforms and the economic toll of prolonged conflict in Gaza. An ambitious regional blueprint could be an opportunity to reassure his domestic constituency that Israel is not diplomatically isolated and he continues to be politically relevant.