The conceptual salad that’s stopping Israel from winning - opinion

Israel's strategic discourse regarding Iran is mired in a "conceptual salad," characterized by a fundamental failure to establish clear policy objectives, according to Oz Bin Nun. The author contends that the debate often devolves into a false dichotomy between "doves" and "hawks," masking a deeper issue: how goals are determined in the first place.

Drawing on military historian Hew Strachan and Carl von Clausewitz, the article distinguishes between policy (the rationale and purpose of war) and strategy (the means to achieve it). Bin Nun argues that if Israel's ultimate policy goal is to overthrow the Iranian regime, then all military and diplomatic actions must be judged by their contribution to this objective. This, he asserts, is not wishful thinking but a matter of "basic existential logic," as Israel cannot coexist long-term with a regime possessing such extreme ideology and destructive capabilities.

The current public and security discourse, however, is criticized for becoming entangled across four channels. Some question the policy itself, doubting Iran's existential threat. Others dismiss regime change as unrealistic, while a third group argues the required resources and costs are too high. Ironically, even those who agree on the need for regime change often abandon strategic discussion, urging blind trust in leaders.

Bin Nun concludes that the most fundamental decision facing Israel is not strategic, but a policy question: actively seeking the overthrow of the Iranian regime. Only after establishing this clear policy can Israel effectively tackle the strategic question of how to allocate resources to achieve this goal. The current conceptual mess prevents a structured debate and hinders progress toward a decisive outcome.