This originally appeared in DCJournal.com
In recent weeks, Israel has dramatically escalated its military operations, extending beyond Gaza to include strikes in Lebanon, Yemen and Syria. This expansion marks a significant shift in strategy that borrows heavily from the American playbook while tailoring it to Israel’s unique geopolitical context. As the conflict intensifies, it’s crucial to examine the implications of this approach, not just for the Middle East but for global security and economic stability.
Israel’s campaign bears striking similarities to the U.S. “surge” strategy employed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like the American approach, Israel aims to use overwhelming force to neutralize threats quickly and create conditions for long-term stability. However, Israel’s version is more focused and time-sensitive, reflecting the immediacy of the threats it faces.
The Israeli government, still reeling from the October 7 Hamas attack, has concluded that the status quo is no longer tenable. This shift in thinking mirrors the U.S. response to 9/11 when the tolerance for terrorist safe havens evaporated overnight. But while the United States had the luxury of distance, Israel is grappling with threats on its doorstep, necessitating a more urgent and comprehensive response.
Unlike the U.S. campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel is not seeking a prolonged occupation or nation-building exercise. Instead, it’s pursuing a strategy of surgical precision aimed at dismantling the leadership and capabilities of Hamas and Hezbollah. This approach reflects a growing weariness with the “hearts and minds” doctrine that has often proved challenging (some may say ineffective) in counterterrorism efforts.
Focusing on precision and speed is not just a tactical choice but a strategic necessity. Israel understands that a drawn-out conflict could erode international support and strain its own resources. By emphasizing targeted strikes and limited ground incursions, Israel hopes to achieve its security objectives while minimizing civilian casualties and avoiding the quagmire of long-term occupation. Can surgical strikes alone create the conditions for lasting peace.
At the heart of Israel’s expanded campaign is Iran. Tehran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah, coupled with its nuclear ambitions, represents an existential threat to Israel. The current offensive can be seen as an indirect confrontation with Iran aimed at weakening its proxies and deterring further aggression.
However, this strategy carries significant risks. Any miscalculation could lead to direct conflict with Iran, potentially drawing in other regional powers and escalating into a wider war. The international community, particularly the United States, must tread carefully in its support for Israel, balancing the need for deterrence against the risk of uncontrolled escalation.
The potential economic consequences of this conflict cannot be overstated. Any disruption to oil supplies from the Middle East could send shockwaves through the global economy. With the U.S. presidential election on the horizon, the effect on energy prices could become a pivotal issue, influencing domestic politics and international relations.
Policymakers in Washington must be prepared for various scenarios, including the possibility of Israeli strikes on Iranian oil infrastructure. The most discussed target is the Kharg oil terminal, which handles 80 percent to 90 percent of oil exports, most of which are destined for China. Such an action would spike oil prices and lead to retaliatory measures that further destabilize the region and global markets.
As Israel pursues this high-stakes strategy, it must maintain clear objectives and an exit strategy. The goal should be to neutralize immediate threats and create a more favorable security environment, not to become entangled in an open-ended conflict.
For the United States, the challenge lies in supporting its ally while preventing further escalation. This will require deft diplomacy, leveraging relationships with other regional powers to contain the conflict and push for a sustainable resolution.
The international community must also play a role in mediating the current crisis and addressing the underlying issues that fuel conflict in the region. This includes renewed efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a comprehensive approach to curbing Iran’s destabilizing activities.
Israel’s expanded war represents a calculated gamble to reshape the security landscape of the Middle East. While the strategy draws from American experiences, it’s tailored to Israel’s unique position and threats.
As the situation unfolds, we must remember the lessons of past conflicts. No matter how precise, military action alone rarely solves deep-seated political and social issues. For lasting peace, Israel and its allies must couple their military strategy with robust diplomatic efforts and a clear vision for post-conflict reconstruction and governance.
The echoes of American strategy in Israel’s actions are clear. Now, we must hope that Israel has learned not just from America’s initial interventions but from the complex, often painful aftermath of those conflicts. The stability of the Middle East — and perhaps the world — may depend on it.
