A resurfaced clip from 2012 of former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon has exposed the core of Israeli occupation doctrine a confession that Israel cannot confront the Axis of Resistance alone and must build a coalition of Muslim countries to fight its wars for it.
Ayalon, who served as commander of the Israeli occupation Navy and as head of the Shin Bet internal security service, outlined in stark terms that a Sunni coalition is essential to confront Iran. The confrontation, he admitted, cannot be pursued by the occupation alone and requires the construction of a broad regional front not as a diplomatic partnership, but as a strategic weapon central to Israeli security planning.
In his assessment, Ayalon stated that it is necessary to create such a coalition, explicitly naming the United States, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt among the states that would form its core.
The coalition is defined as Sunni-aligned by design, intended to operate as a unified bloc against Iran and its regional resistance network, with the stated function of shifting the operational burden away from a direct Israeli-Iranian confrontation and onto Muslim states themselves. What was once discreet diplomacy has now become open confession.
In recent years, the Israeli occupation has transitioned from back-channel contacts to publicly flaunting its partnerships in Muslim-majority countries. This was institutionalized through the Abraham Accords and subsequent normalization, where Tel Aviv now openly presents its security integration with the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco, and its deepening coordination with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Turkiye as a strategic achievement.
This public display serves two purposes. First, it seeks to reframe Israel within the Muslim world not as an occupier of Palestine, but as a partner to Sunni states. Second, it seeks to normalize the concept of Muslims fighting Muslims on behalf of Israeli security.
The inclusion of countries like Pakistan which has no diplomatic ties to the occupation in Ayalon’s core list reveals that the objective was never mere bilateral normalization. It was the construction of an ideological Sunni bloc that could be mobilized against Tehran, with the occupation positioned as its central coordinating actor.
Most revealing is how Ayalon defines the regional conflict itself. He explained the necessity of establishing a Sunni-Shia confrontation as the central conflict in the Arabian Gulf.
In this doctrine, sectarian division is not treated as a tragedy to be healed, but as a strategic prerequisite that must be consolidated and deepened in order to create conditions for a campaign against Iran.
The admission rests on an explicit recognition of Israeli weakness. It acknowledges that the Israeli occupation does not possess the independent capacity to achieve its objectives against Iran’s fortified and dispersed resistance network through direct action alone.
The gap between its declared objectives and its actual capabilities is therefore addressed not by military strength, but by restructuring the entire region along sectarian lines, where Muslim armies become the instrument of Israeli engagement.
The implications of this doctrine have been visible since 2012. While presented as a mechanism to contain Iran, the subsequent years have been marked by extensive destruction across Syria, Iraq and Yemen, with conflicts systematically framed and prosecuted along Sunni-Shia lines resulting in the deaths of millions of Muslims, the collapse of states, and institutional destruction, all without producing a resolution, but successfully serving the occupation’s goal of Muslim division.
