In his classic treatise “On War,” Prussian military strategist Carl von Clausewitz famously wrote that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” What is less remembered is that Clausewitz also cautioned that it is “imperative … not to take the first step without considering the last.”
Clausewitz’s warning, of course, is more often honored in the breach, especially in the Middle East.
In the United States, the last step is generally considered “the exit strategy.” In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the Bush administration lacked an exit strategy for Afghanistan, especially after it pivoted to invade Iraq in March 2003. As a result, there were eventually two disastrous pullouts by the U.S.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a reputation for being a master political tactician within the context of Israeli politics. That point is debatable, but what is unequivocal is that he is a lousy strategist. Netanyahu’s supporters in Israel and America confuse sound bites for tactics and bombastic rhetoric for strategy.
The war in Gaza is clear evidence — but two other related examples are of import. First, of course, is Netanyahu’s 15 year symbiotic relationship with Hamas (notwithstanding his promises to crush Hamas in 2008 and subsequent campaigns). Second was his push for U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal (known as the JCPOA) with nothing to replace it — a move opposed by most of the Israeli security establishment, including Gabi Eisenkot, then chief of staff of the army and currently an “observer” in the war cabinet.
The issue is not whether the JCPOA was seriously flawed — it was. But was the deal better than nothing? After the Trump administration withdrew from the agreement in 2018, Iran had a clear path to enrich uranium with no constraints. A recent study by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies estimated that Iran could enrich sufficient uranium to produce seven nuclear weapons within 30 days. For one weapon, the breakout time was a week.
Netanyahu has thoroughly confounded the Biden administration, Israel Defense Forces staff and even the generals in his war cabinet by refusing to engage in any discussion of “the day after.” The cascading opposition to Netanyahu’s refusal to engage in basic strategic thinking can be seen in three major pronouncements this week alone.
National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, at a press conference on May 13, set forth 10 major points with regard to the conflict. Point seven: “military pressure is necessary but not sufficient to fully defeat Hamas. If Israel’s military efforts are not accompanied by a political plan for the future of Gaza and the Palestinian people, the terrorists will keep coming back and Israel will remain under threat.”
The truth of that statement is undeniable. Israel is fighting again in northern Gaza and elsewhere as Hamas reemerges.
IDF spokespersons, including Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari on May 14, keep referring to the fact that any end to the war requires an alternative to Hamas — but “it’s up to politicians.”
Finally, on May 15, in a direct challenge to Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant stated in a televised address: “I call on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a decision and declare that Israel will not establish civilian control over the Gaza Strip, that Israel will not establish military governance in the Gaza Strip, and that a governing alternative to Hamas in the Gaza Strip will be raised immediately.”
Gallant’s statement led to cries that he should be fired by the extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and by many in Netanyahu’s Likud party. In contrast, Benny Gantz and Gabi Eisenkot, both former chiefs of staff and members of the war cabinet, support Gallant.
Gallant went on to say that without the establishment of a governing alternative to Hamas, “only two negative options remain: Hamas’s rule in Gaza or Israeli military rule in Gaza.” Neither one should be acceptable.
Nature abhors a vacuum. In Gaza, that means where there is a vacuum of leadership, it will be filled by Hamas.
Having worked diligently for 15 years to ignore the Palestinian issue and avoid difficult decisions, it is no wonder that Netanyahu can only prattle and pronounce “total victory” (which is as of yet undefined). Netanyahu has deluded himself into believing that sound bites are tactics and bombast is strategy — but we should no longer be.
Jonathan D. Strum is an international lawyer and businessman based in Washington, D.C. and the Middle East. From 1991 to 2005, he was an adjunct professor of International Law at Georgetown University Law Center.