Iron Resolve: Why Restraint Won’t Deter Israel’s Enemies

In recent statements, President Biden has called for Israeli restraint, urging its forces to avoid escalating the conflict by entering Lebanon to push Hezbollah back from the border. While the intention may be to prevent regional instability, this call for restraint reflects the type of weak response that has repeatedly failed to deter terrorist aggression and authoritarian regimes.

Now more than ever, the U.S. must adopt an approach grounded in “Iron Resolve”—a doctrine of decisive, overwhelming force capable of restoring deterrence, safeguarding allies, and preventing future conflict.

The Failure of Restraint in the Face of Terror

History has shown that restraint in the face of aggression often emboldens hostile actors. The West’s weak response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, for example, led directly to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Similarly, calls for diplomacy and restraint allow terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah to regroup, rearm, and strike again.

When President Biden calls for Israeli restraint, he risks repeating these same mistakes. By urging Israel to hold back from a decisive offensive against Hezbollah, the U.S. sends the wrong message. Rather than encouraging bold action, this restraint enables Hezbollah and its Iranian backers to consolidate power and continue attacks on Israeli civilians.

In situations like this, Iron Resolve, a strategy of decisive, overwhelming force, is the only way to restore deterrence and neutralize the immediate threat.

Diplomacy: A Powerful Tool, But Not Always Enough

The Iron Resolve Doctrine is not universally applicable. There are times when diplomacy, paired with strategic deterrence, has achieved extraordinary results. The peaceful conclusion of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis showed that diplomacy, when backed by strength, can de-escalate global tensions without the need for military intervention.

Similarly, non-military strategies played a crucial role in ending apartheid in South Africa. In such cases, diplomacy and economic pressure succeeded where military action was neither viable nor necessary.

However, when dealing with terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, diplomacy fails. These groups do not seek peace—they thrive on chaos, violence, and ideological extremism. Restraint only provides them with the time they need to regroup and rearm.

When Iron Resolve Is Essential: Hezbollah and Iran

Israel’s recent military actions against Hezbollah exemplify the necessity of the Iron Resolve Doctrine. In the face of Hezbollah’s provocations, Israel launched airstrikes targeting the group’s military capabilities—crippling their communication networks and weapons depots. By also targeting senior Hezbollah leadership, Israel dismantled the group’s command structure and neutralized a major threat to its security.

This was not merely a response to rocket fire—it was a strategic decision to degrade Hezbollah’s ability to wage war in the future. Israel’s actions sent a clear message: further aggression will come at an unbearable cost.

In cases like these, where diplomacy is doomed to fail, Iron Resolve is not just necessary—it’s the only viable path forward.

The Three Pillars of Iron Resolve

Preemptive Defense: The U.S. must support Israel’s right to act preemptively against Hezbollah, ensuring that the group cannot rearm or regroup. Preemptive actions neutralize threats before they materialize into larger conflicts.

Disproportionate Response: Calls for proportional responses only invite further aggression. Israel’s overwhelming response to Hezbollah’s attacks demonstrates that any assault will be met with devastating force. The U.S. should adopt and endorse this principle, making clear that any attack on an ally will trigger a severe and disproportionate reaction.

Unbreakable Red Lines: The U.S. must draw and enforce clear red lines. Violations, whether through attacks on civilians or military installations, must trigger immediate and severe consequences. Too often, red lines are drawn but not enforced—such as with Syria’s use of chemical weapons in 2013. Under Iron Resolve, these lines must be unbreakable.

Restraint Comes with Greater Risks

Advocates of restraint argue that de-escalation will prevent broader regional conflict, but this position overlooks key lessons from history. Encouraging Israel to hold back emboldens actors like Hezbollah, Iran, and the Houthis in Yemen. Restraint is viewed not as a gesture of peace, but as a weakness that hostile forces are quick to exploit.

Diplomacy has its place, but not when dealing with terrorist organizations and regimes driven by ideologies of dominance and destruction. Restraint, in these situations, carries far greater risks than action.

Only Iron Resolve Can Deter Hezbollah and Iran

President Biden’s calls for Israeli restraint may be well-intentioned, but they risk repeating the mistakes of the past. The U.S. and its allies must adopt a doctrine of Iron Resolve to confront the threats posed by groups like Hezbollah and regimes like Iran.

In the face of aggression, there is no room for hesitation. Only decisive, overwhelming force can restore deterrence, protect civilians, and prevent future conflicts. This is the lesson history has taught us—and it is the doctrine that must guide us moving forward.