One battle after another: Netanyahu's new security doctrine

Following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, Benjamin Netanyahu promised “complete victory” in the ensuing conflict. Yet more than two years later, Israel’s enemies, while undoubtedly weakened, persist.

Hamas and its fighters still rule the ruins of half of Gaza. Hezbollah, which Netanyahu claimed to have been “broken” in 2024, continues to bombard northern Israel with rockets from Lebanon. And less than a year after declaring a “historic victory” over Iran, Israel and the US are once again at war with the Islamic Republic.

Instead of promising a decisive victory, the prime minister now speaks of the long course of history, threats that come and go, and the changing regional “balance of power” - while preparing Israelis for a future in which the dangers are constant and the conflict has no clear end.

“There is no more containment of threats,” Netanyahu said in a recent speech to military academies. “There is no more idea of ​​a ‘mansion in the jungle,’ where you hide from predators behind a wall. On the contrary – if you don’t go to the jungle, the jungle comes to you.”

In that vision, which some analysts describe as the beginning of the “Netanyahu Doctrine,” Israel must launch what it calls “preventive” wars against any perceived threat; seize the territories of its neighbors to create “buffer zones” between the enemy and its citizens; and employ permanent force as the only real guarantee of security.

For Michael Milstein, a former military intelligence officer now working at Tel Aviv University, this approach resembles a “post-traumatic national security doctrine,” reflexively shaped after the October 7 attacks, but without deeper elaboration.

Critics point to the absence of any real diplomatic initiative that would offer prospects for a more lasting regional solution, and warn of the cost to Israel's international standing of waging one battle after another, with limited consideration of the human toll on the other side.

The position taken by Netanyahu and his supporters could be summarized as follows: “We do not trust the Arabs and we only trust in force and territory,” Milstein said.

The latest war between the US and Israel against Iran has triggered a conflict that has spread across the Middle East and caused tremors in the global economy.

However, using force to attack potential threats is not new among Israeli prime ministers. Menachem Begin bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981, establishing the eponymous doctrine of action against any new weapons of mass destruction in the region. Ehud Olmert did the same against a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007.

Despite his tough stance on Iran and the Palestinians, and his domestic reputation as a “security tycoon,” Netanyahu has been seen as more cautious about entering conflicts during his three decades in power. Dennis Ross, a veteran former U.S. diplomat who has known the Israeli leader since 1989, said the longtime prime minister has always been more risk-averse.

That changed after the Hamas attack on October 7, the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust. For Netanyahu, “caution seems to have disappeared,” said Ross, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“In Israel, whoever the prime minister is, the key lesson is that you can’t ‘buy’ peace – you have to start new rounds of fighting to forestall threats,” said one former senior Israeli official, adding that this will continue after Netanyahu. “After October 7, there is no other choice.”

Unlike the wars waged by Netanyahu's predecessors, however, the current conflicts show no end in sight. While Israel's founder David Ben-Gurion built a national security doctrine based on short, decisive campaigns, given the country's small size and its reliance on a reserve army, Israel has now been at war for two and a half years - by far its longest war.

The Israel Defense Forces are waging an air war with Iran, expanding a ground offensive in Lebanon, and still hold half of Gaza, as well as much of southwestern Syria. Additional troops have also been deployed to the occupied West Bank, while Houthi rebels in Yemen have continued to fire rockets at Israel.

Critics point to the absence of any real diplomatic initiative that would offer prospects for a more lasting regional solution, and warn of the cost to Israel's international standing of waging one battle after another, with limited consideration for the human toll on the other side.

Netanyahu and his ministers say they plan to re-establish a broad “security zone” by seizing territory in southern Lebanon, as well as to maintain buffer zones in Gaza and Syria indefinitely — a move that Ross and several Israeli analysts consider “unsustainable,” given the current size of the military.

The mounting strain prompted the Israeli army's chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, to warn the government last week that the army needed about 15.000 more soldiers, half of them for ground combat units. "I am raising 10 red flags," he said, according to a number of media outlets. "If this continues, the Israeli army will collapse from within."

The war against Iran, which has been going on for more than a month, has so far enjoyed broad support. According to a recent poll by the Israel Democracy Institute, 78 percent of Israeli Jews support continuing the conflict. But some of his domestic opponents argue that keeping the country on a constant state of war readiness serves the prime minister's political interests, especially ahead of elections expected later this year.

"Any criticism is declared unpatriotic," Milštajn said. "The government's supporters will simply say, 'You don't understand the historical moment we're in.'"

However, the lack of clear results has caused public discontent due to the discrepancy between the constant threats and Netanyahu's previous statements about Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as his statements after the twelve-day war against Iran last June.

Many residents of northern Israel in particular are calling for even more decisive action in Lebanon to stop Hezbollah's rocket fire.

"'Total victory' has always been the slogan," said a former senior Israeli official. "The Israeli military was certainly never tasked with achieving the goal of 'total victory'... But the criticism now stems from the gap between the government's public promises and military reality."

Netanyahu and his supporters, however, insist that their military strategy is proceeding according to plan, with the prime minister repeating on Tuesday that recent wars have "changed the face of the Middle East" and ensured Israel's survival.

According to Yaakov Amidror, a former national security adviser who is still considered close to the prime minister, the series of offensives in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran were designed to avoid simultaneous, all-out wars on multiple fronts.

“The logic was to first eliminate the proxy forces in order to shift the focus to Iran … and to attack Iran from a more favorable and coordinated position,” said Amidror, who now works at the Washington-based JINSA Institute. “A strong blow was struck on every front, but the job was not done.”

Indeed, Israeli officials say that once the current war with Iran ends and the Israeli military's air capabilities are freed up, the offensive against Hezbollah in Lebanon will be stepped up. And after Lebanon, Amidror said, the Israeli military's attention could turn back to Gaza, unless the ceasefire leads to the disarmament of Hamas, a key Israeli condition.

Israeli military officials say that in Iran, the goal is not to overthrow the Islamic Republic, as Netanyahu has suggested, but to “weaken” the regime, destroy its military capabilities and delay the threat for as long as possible.

Even the prime minister, who last year claimed that Israel had “removed the existential threats” posed by Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, this month, despite repeated journalistic questions, was unwilling to guarantee that this would be the last round of confrontation with the Islamic Republic.

If US President Donald Trump were to reach an agreement to end the conflict, Amidror said the most important provision would have to guarantee that "Israel has the right to return and strike Iran any time its nuclear and missile programs are renewed."

For many Israeli analysts and former officials, Netanyahu's inability or unwillingness to translate the Israeli military's operational successes into a strategic victory or a lasting diplomatic solution is considered his greatest failure.

"Calling this a 'doctrine' is incredibly generous," said another former Israeli official. "Wherever there is a problem, he sends in the army, and there is no doubt that more damage is done to the enemy than to us, but that is not the goal."

“The perception in the region is that while Israel is undoubtedly strong, it cannot be considered a reliable, positive and stabilizing actor… none of that diplomatic engagement is happening,” the former official said.

For example, Ross said, while a buffer zone inside Lebanon could help keep Israelis out of range of Hezbollah rockets, a prolonged occupation could re-enforce the militant group’s domestic legitimacy and make a peace deal between the two countries impossible. “That’s the difference between short-term and long-term thinking,” he said.

Even Israel's allies in the US are warning of the potential damage to a key strategic alliance, with deep public skepticism about the current war with Iran, while support for Israel among Democrats and Republicans began to decline even before it was launched.

Netanyahu, however, does not seem discouraged. The experienced Israeli prime minister still believes that if he continues to fight long enough, the Islamic Republic will either be militarily destroyed, overthrown or forced to negotiate a surrender. “Either they will surrender, or they will be reduced to fighting with sticks and stones,” said one regional official.

Translation: A. Š.