Despite their many differences, both Tehran and Jerusalem are finding themselves lonely in the global arena.
At this year’s UN General Assembly, two bitter enemies are locked in confrontation. However, Iran and Israel arrived with more in common than either would admit. Both states stand before the world as isolated actors, cornered by Western powers for actions that have destabilized the Middle East and strained global patience.
The formal recognition of Palestine as an independent state by three G7 members, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada, marks a significant shift in the West’s policy toward Israel and a strategic defeat for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s long-standing policy. Since the Abraham Accords, Netanyahu has celebrated Israel’s growing normalization with Arab states, presenting it as proof that the Palestinian question could be sidelined without consequence. That diplomatic momentum once gave his government room to maneuver both domestically and internationally.
Yet the war in Gaza, combined with the slow creep of West Bank annexation, has not only undermined Israel’s standing with longtime Western allies but also shaken the foundations of its normalization deals. Netanyahu’s “Fortress Israel” strategy, which entailed military dominance while sidelining the Palestinian issue, may once have secured his domestic political survival and international backing. Now, it has left Israel increasingly isolated on both the regional and global stage. Western countries are openly warning that Israel’s actions risk isolating it from the international community, and talk of economic or political consequences is no longer unthinkable.
Iran, meanwhile, arrived at the UN desperate to prevent the “snapback” activation that would restore full international sanctions. The regime in Tehran faces not only an economic crisis but also growing public dissatisfaction, which Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other high-ranking officials have openly acknowledged as the greatest danger to regime survival. They acknowledge that the threat originates more from a restless and disillusioned population at home than from foreign enemies.
At the same time, Iran’s nuclear program, expanding missile arsenal, and military support for Russia’s war in Ukraine have deepened its global pariah status. European states are pressing Khamenei with the same message they deliver to Netanyahu: change your behavior or pay the price. For Iran, the conditions are clear. The Islamic Republic must rein in its nuclear program, scale back regional militias, and halt ballistic missile development. Yet Tehran, like Jerusalem, views retreat as caving in to an existential threat.
What makes this moment striking is not only that both countries are under pressure, but that the pressure comes from the same actors. The West’s leverage over Iran and Israel may differ in strength and style. Yet, the dynamic remains the same. Global powers are increasingly wary of policies that destabilize the Middle East and spill over into broader international crises, as well as into the domestic security concerns of Western states.
At the same time, Gulf states that once viewed Israel as a counterweight to Iran now face a dual threat. Israel’s strike on Qatar, following Iran’s earlier strike in June, sent a chilling signal across the region that neither adversary can be relied upon as a stabilizing force.
The irony is hard to miss. Since 1979, Iran’s Islamic regime has defined itself through hostility toward Israel, portraying the Jewish state as an illegitimate presence in the region. At the same time, Tehran positioned itself as the champion of the Palestinian cause in the Muslim world, even though its own policies and messaging often adopt a harsh stance toward Sunni believers. In practice, Tehran has used the Palestinian cause less as a matter of solidarity and more as a strategic card to claim leadership in the Muslim world, where the Shia remain a minority. Israel, for its part, has cast Iran as an existential threat since 1993, when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin publicly identified Tehran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs as emerging dangers to Israel’s national security.
Yet at the UN this year, both states stood on the defensive before the same critics. Their struggles may differ in form, Israel’s military campaigns and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the outcome is identical: diplomatic isolation.
This irony extends to the peace process itself. Both governments are strongly against a two-state solution, although for opposite reasons. Iran insists on a one-state solution that erases Israel and makes Palestine the only state, while Netanyahu’s government rejects Palestinian statehood to cement permanent Israeli control. To be sure, these are different visions, but they both reject the international consensus and deepen both states’ estrangement from the global community.
Neither Netanyahu nor Khamenei is likely to shift course. Both thrive politically on defiance, and both are afraid that concessions would weaken their grip on power. But their shared isolation is a warning sign. The world is losing patience with endless conflict in the Middle East, whether fueled by Israeli annexation or Iranian militancy. For two adversaries who have defined themselves for decades by their opposition to one another, the harshest irony is that they now stand united.
About the Author: Shukriya Bradost
Shukriya Bradost is a doctoral researcher and international security analyst at Virginia Tech, with expertise in geopolitics, non-state actors, militia groups, and Middle East affairs. A trained lawyer and member of the International Federation of Journalists, she has over fifteen years of experience as a journalist, editor, and media commentator. She is affiliated with the Middle East Institute and is a contributor to The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Her insights have been featured in a wide range of outlets, from The Jerusalem Post to Al Jazeera, and she is a regular guest on international news and current affairs programs.
Image: Lev Radin / Shutterstock.com.
