Why Iran Threatens Middle East Stability: Insights from Israel’s Ambassador to Ghana

In a significant diplomatic statement that reverberates across continents, Israel’s Ambassador to Ghana, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, Roey Gilad, has articulated a stark and comprehensive assessment of Iran’s role in global affairs. Speaking from Accra, Ambassador Gilad characterized the Islamic Republic of Iran not merely as a regional adversary but as a “detrimental pressure” and the “root cause” of instability and terrorism across the Middle East. His remarks, which link Tehran’s nuclear program directly to its sponsorship of militant proxies, provide a clear window into Israel’s strategic threat perception and its evolving diplomatic outreach in Africa. This analysis unpacks the ambassador’s key assertions, contextualizes them within the broader geopolitical landscape, and examines the practical implications for regional security and international counter-terrorism cooperation.

Introduction: A Diplomat’s Stark Warning

The Middle East, a region historically fraught with conflict, faces a singular and persistent engine of destabilization according to a top Israeli diplomat. Ambassador Roey Gilad’s press conference in Ghana’s capital was not a routine diplomatic briefing but a strategic communication aimed at a global audience. By framing Iran’s activities as an interconnected web of nuclear ambition, missile development, and proxy warfare, he sought to crystallize a complex threat into an urgent call for collective action. His speech directly ties the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel to Iranian sponsorship, outlines preconditions for Gaza’s reconstruction, and announces a new bilateral security initiative with Ghana. This piece will deconstruct these elements, assessing their validity, their strategic intent, and what they signal for the future of Middle Eastern security and West African stability.

Key Points: The Core of Ambassador Gilad’s Argument

Ambassador Gilad’s message can be distilled into several interconnected pillars, each reinforcing the central thesis that Iran is the primary destabilizing force in the Middle East and a growing threat beyond its borders.

• Iran as the Architect of Regional Terrorism: He explicitly states that Iran’s network of proxy forces—including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza—are the direct cause of wars and chronic instability. This frames regional conflicts not as indigenous struggles but as manifestations of Iranian “exported revolution.”
• The Existential Nuclear and Missile Threat: The ambassador warns that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities and its advanced ballistic missile program constitute a danger “not simply to Israel, but to all the global.” This elevates the issue from a bilateral Israeli-Iranian dispute to a universal non-proliferation crisis.
• Direct Culpability for October 7: He directly blames Iran for the planning, funding, and arming of the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel that resulted in approximately 1,200 deaths and the taking of 251 hostages. This attribution is a cornerstone of Israel’s justification for its ongoing military operations and its demand for Tehran’s accountability.
• Gaza Reconstruction Linked to Demilitarization: Israel’s position on rebuilding Gaza is made conditional: reconstruction is welcomed, but only after the dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities and governance. He stresses that the international community’s primary duty is to support an “International Stabilisation Force” to achieve this.
• A New Front: Counter-Terrorism in West Africa: The announcement of a joint Israel-Ghana counter-terrorism program signifies a strategic pivot. It acknowledges the spillover of Middle Eastern militant ideologies into West Africa and positions Israel as a security partner for African nations facing threats from groups aligned with or inspired by Iran’s network.

Background: Iran’s Strategy of “Resistance” and Proxy Warfare

The Axis of Resistance: A Network of Asymmetric Power

To understand the ambassador’s warning, one must understand Iran’s decades-long strategy. Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran’s theocratic leadership adopted the doctrine of “muqawama” (resistance) against Western and Israeli influence. Lacking the conventional military strength to confront adversaries directly, Iran invested heavily in building and sustaining a network of non-state armed groups across the Middle East. This “Axis of Resistance” serves multiple purposes: it extends Iran’s strategic depth, allows it to project power without direct attribution, and provides a cost-effective means to harass its enemies.

Each proxy has a specific role. Hezbollah in Lebanon is the most powerful, possessing an arsenal larger than many national armies and serving as a direct deterrent against Israeli or U.S. action. The Houthis in Yemen, since 2014, have evolved from a local insurgency into a force capable of disrupting global shipping in the Red Sea with drone and missile attacks, directly challenging U.S. and Saudi naval power. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza provide a constant pressure point against Israel, tying down Israeli military resources and keeping the Palestinian cause at the forefront of regional politics. Iran supplies these groups with funding, weapons, training, and tactical guidance, creating a decentralized but coordinated threat architecture.

The Nuclear Program: The Crown Jewel of Deterrence

Parallel to its proxy network, Iran’s nuclear program represents its ultimate strategic hedge. Since the 2002 discovery of clandestine facilities, the program has been a focal point of international diplomacy, sanctions, and covert action. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) temporarily limited Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. However, after the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and the re-imposition of severe sanctions, Iran has progressively breached all the JCPOA’s key limits. It is now enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels (60% purity), possesses a stockpile sufficient for multiple nuclear weapons if further enriched, and has restricted international inspections. Combined with its development of advanced ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and reaching throughout the region and into Europe, the nuclear program is viewed by Israel and its allies as an existential threat that cannot be allowed to culminate in a weapon.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Threat and the Diplomatic Offensive

Ambassador Gilad’s speech is a piece of strategic communication as much as it is a policy statement. It serves several interrelated objectives for the Israeli government.

1. Isolating Iran Internationally by Amplifying its “Root Cause” Status

By branding Iran as the singular “root cause” of regional strife, Israel aims to shift the diplomatic narrative. This framing seeks to delegitimize arguments that treat regional conflicts (e.g., Gaza, Yemen, Lebanon) as separate, locally-driven issues requiring separate solutions. Instead, it insists all roads lead to Tehran. This is designed to build a broader international coalition for maximum pressure on Iran, targeting both its nuclear program and its funding of proxies. It also serves to pre-empt criticism of Israel’s military actions by contextualizing them as part of a defensive struggle against a larger, subversive power.

2. The October 7 Attribution: Building a Case for Accountability

The explicit linkage of the October 7 attacks to Iran is a critical legal and political maneuver. It provides a direct justification for holding Iran responsible under international law for acts of terrorism. This paves the way for potential legal actions, further sanctions, and even the argument for self-defense against Iran itself. It also complicates any potential future diplomatic engagement with Tehran, as any negotiation would implicitly need to address its sponsorship of attacks on Israeli civilians.

3. Setting the Preconditions for Gaza’s Future

The conditions for reconstruction—demilitarization and the removal of Hamas—are presented as non-negotiable. This is a long-standing Israeli position, now restated with renewed emphasis. The mention of an “International Stabilisation Force” is a specific proposal for a multinational peacekeeping or security mission to oversee Gaza’s transition, a concept that has gained traction in some Western capitals but faces significant practical and political hurdles regarding composition and mandate. The differentiation between the UAE (positive) and Qatar/Turkey (negative) as potential reconstruction partners is a pointed diplomatic signal, reflecting broader regional rivalries and Israel’s preference for Gulf states with normalized relations (Abraham Accords) over those with closer ties to Islamist movements.

4. Expanding the Battlefield: The Africa Connection

The announcement of the Israel-Ghana counter-terrorism program is perhaps the most forward-looking element. It acknowledges that the ideology and tactics of Iran-aligned groups are not confined to the Middle East. Groups like Boko Haram and its offshoots in West Africa, while primarily locally-focused, have demonstrated connections to and inspiration from global jihadist networks. Israel, with its extensive experience in intelligence, border security, and counter-radicalization, is positioning itself as a security partner for vulnerable states. For Ghana, a stable democracy in a turbulent region, this partnership offers enhanced capabilities to address threats from the Sahel. For Israel, it builds alliances, gathers intelligence on potential threats emanating from Africa, and further isolates Iran by demonstrating that its destabilizing influence is a global concern.

Practical Advice: Understanding the Implications

The ambassador’s statements have tangible implications for policymakers, analysts, and citizens following international affairs.

• For Policymakers: The speech is a clear request for a unified front. Nations concerned about proliferation and terrorism should evaluate their own policies toward Iran’s missile program and its proxy funding networks. Supporting the proposed International Stabilisation Force concept for Gaza, if it materializes, would be a direct test of this commitment.
• For Investors & Business Leaders: The persistent threat of regional conflict, driven by proxy warfare and nuclear brinkmanship, continues to be a primary risk factor for the Middle East. Any investment or operations in the region must factor in the potential for escalation involving Iran and its allies. The Israel-Africa security partnership may also open new markets in defense and security technology.
• For the General Public: Understanding the “proxy” model is key. Conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Gaza are not purely civil wars; they are battlegrounds for the Iran-Saudi/Israel rivalry. Recognizing this helps clarify why these wars are so protracted and devastating. The expansion of security cooperation into Africa means that instability in the Middle East can have tangible security repercussions thousands of miles away.
• For Media & Analysts: Reporting on Middle Eastern conflicts must consistently address the Iranian dimension where applicable—funding, training, and strategic direction. The “root cause” framing, while advocated by Israel, should be examined critically: are local political, economic, and social grievances being overshadowed by the focus on external patronage? Balanced analysis requires acknowledging both the significant Iranian role and the local agency of the groups involved.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Is it accurate to call Iran the “root cause” of all Middle East instability?

A: This is Israel’s core analytical and political argument. It is factually accurate that Iran provides substantial material and strategic support to numerous non-state armed groups that are primary belligerents in several regional conflicts (e.g., Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza). However, critics argue this framing oversimplifies complex conflicts with deep-rooted local causes: sectarian divides, failed governance, economic despair, and historical nationalisms (e.g., Kurdish aspirations, Sunni-Shiite tensions). Iran is a major and deliberate exacerbator of instability, but it is not the sole origin of all conflicts.

Q2: What evidence directly links Iran to the October 7 attack?

A: Israeli and U.S. intelligence agencies have publicly stated they have evidence of Iranian involvement in planning, funding, and arming the operation. This includes claims of financial transfers from Iran to Hamas, training of Hamas fighters by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) personnel, and the provision of weapons and technology. Iran has denied direct involvement, claiming it supports the “resistance” but does not micromanage its actions. The scale and sophistication of the attack suggest a level of planning and resource commitment that points to significant external support, with Iran being the primary suspect.

Q3: Is Israel’s demand for Hamas demilitarization before Gaza reconstruction realistic?

A: This is the central point of contention. Israel views it as an absolute security necessity to prevent a repeat of October 7. The international community, while agreeing on the need to prevent Hamas re-armament, often sees reconstruction as an immediate humanitarian imperative to prevent further collapse. The “International Stabilisation Force” proposal is an attempt to bridge this gap, but it faces major challenges: who would contribute troops, what would their rules of engagement be against a hostile Hamas, and would the Palestinian Authority or a new administration be willing or able to govern? The condition creates a potential deadlock where reconstruction cannot begin without a fundamental political and security transformation that currently has no clear pathway.

Q4: How significant is the new Israel-Ghana counter-terrorism partnership?

A: It represents a strategic expansion of Israel’s security diplomacy into West Africa, a region where it has historically had limited presence. For Ghana, it provides access to advanced intelligence, surveillance, and training capabilities from a state with a proven record in counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency. For Israel, it diversifies its alliances, gains a foothold and intelligence access in a critical region where Iranian and jihadist influence is growing (e.g., Sahel), and strengthens ties with a stable, English-speaking African democracy. It is part of a broader trend of African nations quietly cooperating with Israel on security, despite political complexities regarding the Palestinian issue.

Conclusion: A Persistent and Pervasive Threat Narrative

Ambassador Roey Gilad’s comprehensive indictment of Iran reflects a consistent and unwavering pillar of Israeli national security doctrine. It posits that the Iranian regime, driven by its revolutionary ideology and seeking regional hegemony, employs a dual strategy of nuclear threshold advancement and asymmetric warfare via proxies. This strategy, from the Israeli perspective, makes Iran an unparalleled threat to regional stability and a direct danger to global security through its potential to spark a wider war or provide terrorist capabilities to non-state actors.

The speech is not merely an analysis but a diplomatic action in itself. It aims to solidify international consensus, justify Israel’s own military and political postures (