Israeli Security Doctrine: Challenges for the Region

Why It Matters

Israel’s shift to a perpetual war framework deepens regional volatility and forces allies, especially the United States and Jordan, to reassess security commitments and diplomatic strategies.

Key Takeaways

• Israel adopts “forever war” doctrine, emphasizing preemption over diplomacy.
• Lack of international pressure enabled expansion of buffer zones in Syria, Lebanon.
• Domestic consensus tolerates prolonged military mobilization after Oct 7 trauma.
• Jordan fears erosion of peace treaty benefits and regional stability.
• U.S. policy shifts from warning to managing Israel’s perpetual conflict stance.

Summary

The panel examined Israel’s evolving security doctrine, which has moved from a deterrence‑based posture to a “forever war” strategy centered on pre‑emptive strikes, buffer zones, and the systematic degradation of adversaries. Speakers traced the shift to the October 7 Hamas attack, arguing that Israeli leaders concluded deterrence and political settlements were no longer viable, prompting an expansive military agenda that now reaches Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Key insights highlighted the absence of a concrete “day‑after” plan for Gaza, the internal consensus tolerating endless reserve mobilization, and the role of U.S. administrations: the Biden team warned against endless conflict while the Trump era appeared more willing to accommodate Israel’s new baseline. The discussion also underscored the lack of viable alternative strategies within Israel’s political system, leaving the doctrine unchecked. Notable remarks included Nathan Brown’s observation that Israel now seeks to “degrade, disrupt, prevent reconstitution” rather than negotiate, and former IDF chief Gadi Eisenkot’s 2008 warning that villages firing at Israel would face “disproportionate power” – a plan that now feels routine. Marwan Washer reminded listeners that Jordan’s 1994 peace treaty was designed to contain Palestinian statehood aspirations, a safeguard now perceived as eroding. The implications are profound: a militarized doctrine entrenches regional instability, strains U.S.–Israel coordination, and threatens Jordan’s security calculus. Without a competing strategic vision, Israel risks perpetual conflict, limiting diplomatic pathways and reshaping Middle‑East power dynamics.

Original Description

In the past two years, some observers have noted a sharp shift in Israeli security discussions, suggesting a doctrine based on more assertive military action, pre-emption, buffer zones, and less on deterrence, diplomacy, and the negotiation of political arrangements. What is driving this shift and how does it express itself? How are nearby Arab states reacting?

In this virtual roundtable hosted by Carnegie’s Middle East Program, non-resident scholar Nathan J. Brown, Vice President for Studies Marwan Muasher, and Middle East program director Amr Hamzawy, will be joined by International Crisis Group senior analyst Mairav Zonszein to discuss the implications of Israel’s evolving security strategy. The conversation will be moderated by Carnegie Middle East Program senior fellow Sarah Yerkes.