Since October 7, 2023, Israel has engaged in the longest and most complex war it has faced since the state’s establishment, fighting across six fronts: Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. As Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir warned upon his appointment earlier this year, 2025 would be “a year of battle.” The war is far from over and continues to unfold across multiple arenas.
After October 7, Israel concluded that it cannot allow terrorist organizations to once again grow, arm themselves, and entrench with external funding and training.
One thing, however, is clear: Regardless of the outcome, Israel will implement a doctrine of zero-trust and to signal to the region that it will eliminate any threat to its national security at the earliest stage. After October 7, Israel concluded that it cannot allow terrorist organizations to once again grow, arm themselves, and entrench with external funding and training, as Hezbollah has in Lebanon over the past 23 years, and Hamas in Gaza over the past 18 years. To restore deterrence and superiority after the failures of October 7, Israel has set itself the mission of uprooting threats at the grassroots level.
Even Israel’s political posture has shifted. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history, has built his public image since returning to office in 2009 as “Mr. Security,” yet he has always been a cautious leader and conservative in military affairs. Over the course of the current war, however, he has evolved into a leader unafraid to engage in direct conflict with Israel’s most dangerous enemies, even at the cost of Israel’s economy, social resilience, and global standing.
In military terms, Israel has advanced on all fronts—the deep, close, and rear—which puts the enemy on the “horns of a dilemma.” This drives the flow of battle to a place and time of Israel’s choosing, seizing initiative and advantage. By doing so, Netanyahu has shown the United States the way to prosecute its own National Security Strategy. By applying the zero-trust doctrine to strike at enemies wherever they are, Israel eliminates any safe harbor and forces its adversaries to fight on all fronts. It asserts that anyone who attacks its citizens is fair game and cannot hide behind arbitrary lines of demarcation. In short, Israel recognizes the battlefield in its existential fight is everywhere.
One example of this application would be for Israel or the United States to threaten the Iranian regime with direct action against its leaders, should the regime continue to pursue nuclear weapons or support proxies such as the Houthis, Hamas, and Hezbollah. These threats should be public and precise. Name names. Then target these leaders with actions to include economic sanctions, cyber-attacks, and military action.
Israel’s disengagement in Gaza allowed Hamas to build up its combat infrastructure, which led to the attacks on October 7, 2023.
History demonstrates that when nations arbitrarily limit battlefield boundaries, the enemy adapts and prevails. During the insurgency in Iraq, the United States refused to engage Iranian forces despite their direct support of Shi’ite militias. This policy continued even as militia attacks against U.S. personnel increased in lethality because of Iranian-made Explosively Formed Penetrators. In Afghanistan, Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters regularly withdrew into Pakistan knowing the U.S. rules of engagement limited incursions. In Vietnam, the United States failed to address critical Viet Cong supply lines that extended into Laos and Cambodia until late in the conflict, allowing the Viet Cong years of battlefield logistics advantages. Finally, Israel’s disengagement in Gaza allowed Hamas to build up its combat infrastructure, which led to the attacks on October 7, 2023.
Strategists must learn from these mistakes and from Israel’s reintroduction of the zero-trust doctrine. The enemies the United States and Israel face in the Middle East do not care about borders. They focus on winning. If the United States seeks strategic victory over these adversaries, it must do the same—without regard to borders.
