Two years have passed since the fires of October 7, 2023, consumed the delusions of a generation. That day was not merely an intelligence failure; it was the irrefutable bankruptcy of a Western foreign policy doctrine that had prioritized process over victory, and management over resolution. As Israel marks this anniversary, the debate over the future of the Middle East, and America’s role within it, has crystallized around a single question: Is a strong, assertive Israel a strategic liability for the United States, or is it a strategic asset? The answer will define the security of the West for the next generation.
Both ends of the political spectrum are now being spoon-fed Islamist talking points, arriving at the same conclusions.
There is no better artifact of the failed school of thought—the doctrine of managed decline—than former CIA officer John Kiriakou’s recent appearance on Dalton Fischer’s podcast. Listening to his analysis on this anniversary is a chilling reminder of the intellectual rot that led us to this point. But this doctrine is no longer confined to the foreign policy establishment; it has found fertile ground in an unholy alliance between the progressive far-left and a new, isolationist “woke right.” Both ends of the political spectrum are now being spoon-fed Islamist talking points, arriving at the same conclusions from different starting points.
The progressive left, steeped in the language of post-colonialism, sees a simplistic morality play of oppressor and oppressed, reflexively siding with any group that claims the mantle of “resistance,” no matter what its methods. The woke right, in its pursuit of an “America First” policy, views alliances as entanglements and foreign aid as a betrayal of the homeland, echoing the antisemitic trope that a “Zionist lobby” is dragging America into wars that are not its own. Kiriakou gives a veneer of sophisticated legitimacy to this dangerous convergence. He speaks of encounters with allies like the Mossad as “universally negative” and suggests America is doing Israel’s “dirty work.” This is the language that fuels both the anti-imperialist left and the isolationist right, a worldview that sees the U.S.-Israel alliance as a transactional burden rather than a civilizational imperative.
This argument displays strategic shortsightedness and mistakes the symptom for the disease. The source of instability in the Middle East is not Israeli strength; it is the genocidal ideology of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its network of Islamist proxies. It was the doctrine of managed decline, which now counsels “restraint” and “de-escalation,” that allowed this ideological cancer to metastasize for forty years. It was the policy of appeasing Iran, of enriching it through flawed deals, of tolerating its proxy wars, and of pressuring Israel to “mow the grass” rather than uproot the lawn, that led to October 7, 2023. The liability was not the alliance with Israel; it was the failure to empower Israel to achieve victory over a shared enemy. The architects of this failure now blame the ally their policies left vulnerable.
Conflicts with ideological enemies do not end through compromise; they end when one side decisively defeats the other.
October 7 was the crucible in which a new doctrine grounded in victory was forged. This approach is built on a single truth: Conflicts with ideological enemies do not end through compromise; they end when one side decisively defeats the other. The Second World War did not end with a peace conference between the Allies and the Axis powers; it ended with the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. That total defeat was not an act of vengeance; it was a precondition for transformation. It was only after Allied annihilation of Axis military power and the discrediting of Nazism, fascism, and Imperial Japanese ideologies that those societies could be rebuilt as peaceful, productive members of the international community. The path to a lasting resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the broader regional war against Iranian expansionism, is the same. The goal of warfare should not be to restore deterrence or to create the conditions for a return to the negotiating table; the goal of warfare is to impose a victory so total that it shatters the enemy’s will to fight for a generation. It is to force a society to confront the catastrophic failure of its rejectionist ideology, demonstrating that the path of violence leads only to ruin.
The results of this doctrine are now visible: A new regional order, anchored by Israeli strength, is the emerging reality of a new Middle East. Having achieved a decisive military victory over Hamas and having directly confronted the head of the octopus in Iran, has become the region’s security provider. This is not a threat to American interests; it is the fulfillment of them. An Israel that acts as a regional hegemon, projecting power to enforce stability, is the most effective and cost-efficient bulwark against the forces that threaten American interests.
A hegemonic Israel, acting as the anchor of a new, pro-American alliance of moderate states, is the most effective and cost-efficient bulwark against Iranian aggression, Russian influence, and Chinese encroachment. For an America increasingly wary of endless wars and focused on the challenge from China, this new reality is a strategic gift. It offers a paradigm for securing a vital region without the deployment of American armies. Every Iranian nuclear facility destroyed by the Israeli Air Force is a direct blow to the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, achieved without risking a single American pilot. Every Iranian weapons shipment to Hezbollah interdicted by Israeli intelligence prevents a war that could destabilize the global economy. Every Islamist leader killed by Mossad operatives is one less threat to American forces.
An Israel that acts as a regional hegemon ... is the most effective and cost-efficient bulwark against the forces that threaten American interests.
This new order provides a powerful counterweight to the ambitions of global rivals. As Turkey seeks to expand its influence in Syria and across the region, an assertive Israel is the only local power capable of checking its advance. As China seeks to dominate strategic waterways and economic corridors through its Belt and Road Initiative, an Israel that is integrated with its moderate Arab neighbors, as envisioned by the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, creates a pro-Western bloc that secures these routes. A powerful Israel is not a distraction from the great power competition; it is a critical asset on its front lines. It is a stabilizer that requires no American boots on the ground and no American casualties. This new framework offers America a way to secure its interests while reducing its military footprint. A victorious Israel is not a liability that drags America into war; it is an asset that secures the peace.
The argument voiced on the left and right that Israel is a strategic liability is the last, desperate gasp of a failed establishment to deflect blame for the consequences of their own doctrines. They warn of the costs of victory, but they ignore the greater costs of the perpetual, managed conflict they created. This anniversary should be a moment of resolve, a time to embrace clarity. The choice is not between war and negotiation; it is a choice between victory and perpetual violence.
