TEL AVIV (Realist English). Over three years of unrelenting wars — in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and against Iran — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has articulated a new strategy that analysts have already dubbed the “Netanyahu Doctrine.” Its essence is a rejection of deterrence in favour of endless preventative wars.
Speaking to graduates of military academies, Netanyahu declared: “There is no more deterrence of threats. There is no more idea of a ‘villa in the jungle,’ where you hide from predators behind a wall. On the contrary — if you don’t go into the jungle, the jungle comes to you.”
His strategy, according to Israeli military analyst Amos Harel, ignores the colossal costs in blood and resources — and now publicly and explicitly endorses waging wars without end.
The Doctrine: Three Pillars of “Forever War”
Analysts identify three key elements of the new strategy:
| Doctrine Element | Essence |
| Preventative wars | Pre‑emptive strikes against any potential threat, regardless of consequences |
| Seizure of buffer zones | Taking neighbouring territory to create security zones between the enemy and Israeli citizens |
| Permanent force | Continuous military presence as the only real guarantee of security |
Instead of promising decisive victory, Netanyahu now speaks of the “long march of history,” threats that come and go, and a shifting regional “balance of power” — preparing Israelis for a future in which dangers are constant and conflict has no clear endpoint.
The Lesson of October 7: From Caution to Recklessness
Before October 7, 2023, Netanyahu, in the view of observers, was relatively cautious about entering conflicts. Dennis Ross, a former American diplomat who has known the Israeli leader since 1989, noted that after the Hamas attack — the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust — “caution seems to have disappeared.”
Michael Milstein, a Tel Aviv University researcher and former military intelligence officer, characterises Netanyahu’s approach as a “post‑traumatic national security doctrine,” reflexively shaped after the October 7 attacks but lacking deep strategic elaboration. The prime minister’s position and that of his supporters can be summarised as: “We don’t trust Arabs and believe only in force and territory.”
The Iran War and the Price of “Forever War”
The ongoing US‑Israeli war against Iran has spilled across the entire Middle East and caused upheaval in the global economy. Yet, as Harel notes, even after four days of war, none of the stated or unstated goals have been clearly achieved. Israel’s enemies, weakened but not broken, retain the ability to strike.
Harel also warns that “forever war” serves Netanyahu’s personal interests, allowing him to avoid the three main threats to his rule: early elections, criminal trials and the collapse of his coalition. The prime minister, according to Harel, cannot move forward because doing so would mean the end of his government.
After Netanyahu: A Change of Faces or a Change of Course?
Israeli elections are scheduled for October 27. According to polls, Netanyahu will find it extremely difficult to form a government. His main rival is Gadi Eisenkot, a veteran centrist who leads the prime minister in surveys.
However, Harel warns that replacing Netanyahu with Eisenkot will not suddenly turn Israel “dovish.” Eisenkot has already taken a harder line on Gaza than Netanyahu himself and in August 2026 declared his opposition to a Palestinian state. As Harel notes, Eisenkot is likely to continue the same policies, but with less rhetoric and without Netanyahu’s personal stake in prolonging the conflict.
Some experts believe there will be no significant differences on key security issues at all. As one former senior Israeli official put it: “In Israel, whoever is prime minister, the key lesson is — you cannot ‘buy’ peace — you need to start new rounds of fighting to prevent threats. After October 7, there is no other choice.”
A Doctrine That Will Outlive Its Author
The “Netanyahu Doctrine” is not merely one man’s strategy but a reaction to the deepest trauma of Israeli society. Even if the prime minister leaves office in October, his legacy — the belief that security is achieved only through force and territory — has already taken root in the country’s political centre.
Open questions remain. Can Eisenkot offer an alternative to “forever war,” or will his position prove to be merely “Netanyahu without Netanyahu”? Can Israeli society, having endured the trauma of October 7, return to a strategy of deterrence and diplomacy? And most importantly — are the United States, regardless of who becomes prime minister, prepared to pressure Israel toward a peaceful settlement?
As Harel notes, the scale of possible change will depend largely on Donald Trump and the nature of his relationship with a post‑Netanyahu government. But for now, Israeli politicians of all stripes are preparing the country for a future in which dangers are constant and conflict has no clear endpoint.
