Israel Needs a Grand Strategy—Now More Than Ever

Former director of Mossad, Tamir Pardo, noted today during a speech he delivered at Netanya Academic College that “The Israeli government has no strategy and no objective in managing the war.” He is largely correct. Since October 7, 2023, Israel has been operating in a state of perpetual crisis management. The Hamas attack, the subsequent war in Gaza, the international backlash that resulted in growing isolation on the world stage, and the military clashes with Hezbollah and Iran, have all demanded immediate responses. The resumption of the military campaign in Gaza recently may prove to be “more of the same” without a major effort to address the foundational questions and dilemmas related to Israeli national security that the war had exposed.

While some of these challenges persist at various levels of intensity, and others have emerged in the aftermath of the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, Israel must do something it has long avoided: articulate a grand strategy. The absence of such a guiding framework has left Israel reacting to crises rather than shaping its future. The time has come for Israeli leaders to define a comprehensive vision that integrates military, diplomatic, economic, and social imperatives into a coherent long-term plan.

For decades, Israel’s approach to security has been largely tactical—deter, defend, and, when necessary, preemptively move to dismantle immediate threats. This worked for a time, allowing the country to flourish economically and maintain regional military superiority. But the events of October 7, and some of the military and diplomatic confrontations that followed, shattered any illusion of stability. They exposed critical failures in intelligence and strategic foresight, underscoring the urgent need for a more holistic approach to Israeli national security. Furthermore, short-term military and diplomatic actions, however necessary, do not amount to a vision for the future.

Israel needs something more—an overarching grand strategy that defines its long-term goals and the means to achieve them. Without one, the country risks stumbling from crisis to crisis, remaining largely reactive rather than proactive, strong yet directionless. Whereas in the United States, the president is obliged by the Goldwater–Nichols Act (1987) to “transmit to Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy”, no such mechanism exists in Israel.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the centrality as well as the fluidity of security affairs, most of the discourse on Israeli national security strategy has existed as general principles transmitted from one generation of political and military leaders to the next in a rather informal form of ideational diffusion. However, these principles were never fully entrenched by legislation or procedure. In the past, there were efforts to produce a National Security Doctrine including through the work of Dan Meridor, first as a member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament) in the mid-1980s and then as the chairman of a designated committee that released its findings in 2006. The Meridor Committee’s report was presented to the security cabinet and the Israeli defense establishment but was never formally approved.

On his own initiative, and in an unprecedented move, Israel’s chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot authored in 2015 the first-ever formal defense strategy. An unclassified version was released to the public, and a revised version was released in 2018, but neither document was discussed in the security cabinet or approved by the government. Eisenkot later revealed in an interview that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon disapproved of this initiative. In any case, Eisenkot’s texts focused on the military’s strategic and operational responses to Israel’s primary threats.

In response to Eisenkot’s documents, Netanyahu announced in the summer of 2018 that he updated Israel’s national security and presented it to the cabinet. An unclassified version of the text was not released to the public yet, but the document ostensibly focused on the emerging threats Israel would face in the coming decades and the various military as well as economic preparations that should be implemented to confront them. Still, some reports suggest it refrained from articulating Israel’s long-term vision or the country’s political endgame.

A true grand strategy, however, would go beyond military strategy or operational readiness to address broader yet fundamental questions: What kind of future does Israel want for itself and the region? How does it accomplish lasting security and legitimacy in an increasingly hostile international environment? And what role should Israel’s alliances—both with the United States and the emerging partnerships in the Arab world—play in shaping its next steps?

Israel excels at tactics and adaptation. Some analysts argued that the military response to the October 7 attack demonstrated impressive operational capabilities but, in reality, no tactical brilliance can substitute for strategic clarity. Without a grand strategy, every military gain risks becoming ephemeral, every diplomatic move reactive, and every societal division deepened. The lack of a clear strategic framework has allowed adversaries—from Hamas to Iran—to dictate the pace and nature of conflicts, leaving Israel perpetually responding rather than shaping events and their desired outcomes.

A grand strategy is more than just military doctrine; it is a comprehensive and long-term approach that integrates security, diplomacy, economic policy, and societal resilience into a coherent framework to advance national interests in both wartime and peacetime. While specifics should be debated and refined, several core elements must be considered:

Identifying Israel’s National Interest – an elusive concept, the national interest generally defines what a country considers essential for its long-term survival and success in world affairs. The national interest guides a country’s domestic and foreign policies, helping to shape decisions about defense, diplomacy, trade, and other areas that affect its long-term existence and prosperity.

Defining Israel’s Long-Term Security Posture – What does victory against Hamas mean? What is Israel’s strategic endgame with Hezbollah and Iran? These are important questions, but they are not long-term enough. A grand strategy must go beyond battlefield successes and outline a sustainable security architecture for Israel and the region.

Recalibrating Israel’s Regional and Global Alliances – The Abraham Accords have shown the potential of regional partnerships, but how can they be further expanded and deepened to include Saudi Arabia and other influential regional actors? How should Israel navigate its increasingly complex relationship with the United States, particularly amid shifting American priorities? Israel needs a diplomatic roadmap that aligns its security needs with broader geopolitical realities.

Addressing the Palestinian Question – A viable strategy must contend with the future of the Palestinians. Whether through renewed engagement with moderate Palestinian factions, regional cooperation, or alternative models, Israel must articulate a vision that moves beyond the status quo of endless conflict towards bilateral as well as comprehensive peace.

Public Diplomacy – Israel must recognize that global public opinion and international legitimacy are now as much a part of its security equation as tanks and fighter jets. The shifting attitudes in the US, Europe, and even among traditional allies should not be ignored. A grand strategy must include a diplomatic initiative—one that is proactive, not just defensive—demonstrating Israel’s genuine commitment to regional peace and stability that is backed by concrete actions and deliverable results.

Strengthening Internal Resilience – Even before the war in Gaza, Israeli society has been deeply divided—politically, religiously, and socially. No grand strategy can succeed if internal cohesion continues to fray. As Abraham Lincoln famously observed, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” A national effort to articulate a bold new social contract that is based on the noble principles articulated in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, reinvigorate democratic institutions as well as norms, and restore trust in leadership is as critical as any military operation.

The absence of a grand strategy leaves Israel vulnerable—not just to external threats but to internal paralysis. Wars will be fought, ceasefires will be brokered, and diplomatic crises will be managed, but without a clear long-term vision, Israel risks fighting the same battles repeatedly. The cost is measured not just in security but in national morale, economic stability, and diplomatic standing.

Israel has shown remarkable resilience in the face of adversity since it was founded in May 1948. But survival alone is not a strategy. The country needs leadership that is willing to think beyond the next battle and commit to a vision that secures its future for generations. Without such a grand strategy, Israel risks being trapped in an endless cycle of wars without endgames, victories without peace, and security without stability. It’s time for Israel to think hard and long about where it wishes to be in a decade or two. There are available blueprints for such a grand strategy, including one proposal put forward by Maj. Gen. (res.) Tamir
Hayman, Executive Director of the Institute for National Security Studies.

Despite the extant challenging circumstances, now is the moment for Israel’s leadership—political, military, and intellectual—to act responsibly and articulate a grand strategy that defines the vision for the country’s future and articulates the principles for realizing it. The alternative is for Israel to remain trapped in the cycle of reaction – counter-reaction, never fully in control of its destiny. A country as strong and resourceful as Israel deserves better.