
Israel can't bomb its way out of decline
Israel has now been at war with its neighbours for nearly two years. The latest round began with the Hamas-led terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. In response, West Jerusalem launched an aggressive military campaign that has since expanded to touch nearly every country in the region. The escalation has placed the Jewish state at the centre of Middle Eastern geopolitics once again – this time, dragging in Iran, a state that had long avoided direct confrontation through strategic caution. Now, even Tehran finds itself under fire, with US backing making the stakes far higher. Iran is left facing a grim choice between the bad and the very bad.
But this isn't about Iran. It's about Israel, a country that has for decades functioned as the West's forward operating base in the Middle East. Since the mid-20th century, Israel has enjoyed a privileged position – a bridgehead of Western power in a volatile region, while also deeply enmeshed in its politics and rivalries. Its success has rested on two pillars: the unshakable support of the United States, and its own internal capacity for innovation, military strength, and a unique social model.
That second pillar, however, has weakened. The clearest sign is in demographics: Israel is facing rising negative migration. In 2024, some 82,700 people are expected to leave the country – a 50% increase from the year before. It is not the unskilled or disengaged who are leaving, but the young and educated. The people who are needed to sustain a modern state are choosing to go.
Of course, Israel's troubles are not unique. Like many developed nations, it is struggling under the weight of a decaying neoliberal economic system. The pandemic made things worse, exposing the fragility of the model and encouraging a shift toward a 'mobilisation' mode of governance – rule through emergency and constant readiness for conflict. In the West more broadly, war and geopolitical confrontation have become a way to delay or disguise necessary systemic reform.
In this regard, Israel has become a laboratory for the West's emerging logic: permanent war as a method of governance. In the autumn of 2023, the Israeli establishment embraced this fully. Conflict became not just a tactic, but a way of life. Its leaders no longer see peace as the goal, but war as the mechanism for national unity and political survival. In this, Israel mirrors the broader Western embrace of conflict with Russia and China – proxy wars chosen when actual reform is off the table.
At the global level, nuclear deterrence limits how far such wars can go. But in the Middle East, where Israel wages war directly, those constraints don't apply. This allows war to serve as a pressure valve – politically useful, even as it becomes self-destructive.
But even war has limits. It cannot indefinitely mask economic decay or social unrest. And while conflict tends to cement elite power – even among incompetent leadership – it also drains national strength. Israel is now consuming more and more of its own resources to sustain this permanent state of war. Its social cohesion is fraying. Its once-vaunted model of technological and civic progress is no longer functioning as it did.
Some in West Jerusalem may dream of 'reformatting' the Middle East – reshaping the region through force and fear. If successful, it could buy Israel a few decades of security and breathing room. But such outcomes are far from guaranteed. Crushing a neighbour doesn't eliminate the threat; it merely brings distant enemies closer. Most importantly, Israel's deepest problems aren't external – they are internal, rooted in its political and social structures.
War can define a state, yes. But such states – Sparta, North Korea – tend to be 'peculiar,' to put it mildly. And even for them, war cannot substitute for real diplomacy, policy, or growth.
So has Israel, always at war, truly developed? Or has it simply been sustained – politically, militarily, and financially – as a subdivision of American foreign policy? If it continues down this path of permanent conflict and right-wing nationalism, it risks losing even that status. It may cease to be the West's bridge in the Middle East – and become something else entirely: a militarised garrison state, isolated, brittle, and increasingly alone.This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Kremlin comments on possible US strike on Iran
Washington would make a serious mistake by deciding to attack Iran, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told RT. Direct involvement by the US in the ongoing conflict between the Islamic Republic and Israel will only worsen the situation in the region, he warned. Tensions escalated last week after Israel launched a large-scale bombing campaign against Iran, claiming that Tehran was close to producing a nuclear bomb. Iran dismissed the accusations and retaliated with waves of drone and missile strikes. The two nations have continued exchanging strikes ever since. US President Donald Trump has made direct threats against Tehran in recent days, demanding its complete surrender and abandonment of its nuclear program. The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that an attack plan on Iran had already been secretly approved, but the president said the publication 'has no idea.' The White House added that Trump would make a final decision 'within the next two weeks.' 'Moscow believes it is a wrong move,' Peskov said when asked about Russia's response to the hypothetical action. 'This is a step that is bound to lead to further escalation, a major escalation, and would only complicate the situation in the region.' 'Such conflicts are capable of setting the entire region on fire,' Peskov warned. He added that Russia remains ready and willing to assist in resolving the conflict. When asked about the possibility of regime change in Iran at the hands of the US or Israel, Peskov echoed President Vladimir Putin's view that such discussions are unacceptable. 'We believe that it is unacceptable to have such conversations, and even more so to take such actions,' he said. The Russian president reportedly has a 'complete picture' of the situation and the potential to act as a mediator, according to Peskov. He noted that Putin has been in contact with both Israel and Iran, and was one of the few world leaders to speak with both countries' leaders after hostilities began. However, Peskov admitted there is currently 'little ground' for talks as both Israel and Iran remain determined to continue the fighting. Putin himself told journalists at a late-night Q&A on Wednesday that Moscow has proposed several compromise frameworks to all parties – including the US, Israel, and Iran. He also suggested that a potential settlement could include mutual security guarantees protecting both Iran's right to peaceful nuclear technology and Israel's right to security.


Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Israel's war on Iran is not about nuclear weapons
The claim that has been adopted by the United States, Israel and its European partners, that the attack on Iran was a 'pre-emptive' attempt to stop Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, is demonstrably false. It holds about as much weight as the allegations against Iraq's Saddam Hussein in 2003 and this war of aggression is just as illegal. For the best part of four decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been claiming that Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Yet, every single attempt to strike a deal which would bring more monitoring and restrictions to Iran's nuclear program has been systematically dismantled by Israel and its powerful lobbying groups in Western capitals. In order to properly assess Israel's attack on Iran, we have to establish the facts in this case. The Israeli leadership claim to have launched a pre-emptive strike, but have presented no evidence to support their allegations that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon. Simply stating this does not serve as proof, it is a claim, similar to how the US told the world Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Back in March, the US Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard testified before a Senate Intelligence Committee that the intelligence community 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.' On top of this, Iran was actively participating in indirect negotiations with the US to reach a new version of the 2015 Nuclear Deal. Donald Trump announced Washington would unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in 2018, instead pursuing a 'maximum pressure' sanctions campaign at the behest of Israel. Despite the claims of Netanyahu and Trump that Iran was violating the Nuclear Deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a report which stated Iran was in full compliance with the deal at the time. If you trace back every conversation with neo-conservatives, Israeli war hawks and Washington-based think tanks, their opposition to the Obama-era Nuclear Deal always ends up spiraling into the issues of Iran's ballistic missile program and its support for regional non-State actors. Israeli officials frequently make claims about Iran producing a nuclear weapon in 'years', 'months' or even 'weeks,' this has become almost second nature. Yet their main issue has always been with Iran's support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, who strive for the creation of a Palestinian State. Proof of this all is simple. Israel, by itself, cannot destroy Iran's vast nuclear program. It is not clear the US can destroy it either, even if it enters the war. An example of the US' ineffectiveness at penetrating Iranian-style bunkers, built into mountainous ranges, as many of Iran's nuclear facilities are, was demonstrated through the American failure to destroy missile storage bases in Yemen with its bunker-buster munitions, which were dropped from B-2 bombers. Almost immediately after launching his war on Iran, Netanyahu sent out a message in English to the Iranian people, urging them to overthrow their government in an attempt to trigger civil unrest. The Israeli prime minister has since all but announced that regime change is his true intention, claiming that the operation 'may lead' to regime change. Israel's own intelligence community and military elites have also expressed their view that their air force alone is not capable of destroying the Iranian nuclear program. So why then launch this war, if it is not possible to achieve the supposed reason it was 'pre-emptively' launched? There are two possible explanations: The first is that the Israeli prime minister has launched this assault on Iran as a final showdown in his 'seven front war,' with which he hopes to conclude the regional conflict through a deadly exchange that will ultimately inflict damage on both sides. In this scenario, the desired outcome would be to conclude the war with the claim that Netanyahu has succeeded at destroying or has significantly degraded Iran's nuclear program. He would also throw in claims, like we already see him making, that huge amounts of Iranian missiles and drones were eliminated. This would also make the opening Israeli strike, which killed senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and nuclear scientists, make sense. It would all be the perfect blend of propaganda to sell a victory narrative. On the other hand, the assumption would be that Tehran would also claim victory. Then both sides are able to show the results to their people and tensions cool down for a while. If you are to read what the Washington-based think-tanks are saying about this, most notably The Heritage Foundation, they speak about the ability to contain the war. The second explanation, which could be an added bonus that the Israelis and US are hoping could come as a result of their efforts, is that this is a full-scale regime change war that is designed to rope in the US. Israel's military prestige was greatly damaged in the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, and since that time there has been no victory achieved over any enemy. Hamas is still operating in Gaza and is said to have just as many fighters as when the war began, Hezbollah was dealt significant blows but is still very much alive, while Yemen's Ansarallah has only increased its strength. This is an all round stunning defeat of the Israeli military and an embarrassment to the US. As is well known, Iran is the regional power that backs all of what is called the Axis of Resistance. Without it, groups like Hezbollah and Hamas would be significantly degraded. Evidently, armed resistance to Israeli occupation will never end as long as occupied people exist and live under oppressive rule, but destroying Iran would be devastating for the regional alliance against Israel. The big question however, is whether regime change is even possible. There is a serious question mark here and it seems much more likely that this will end up on a slippery slope to nuclear war instead. What makes the Israeli-US claim that this war is somehow pre-emptive, for which there is no proof at all, all the more ridiculous of a notion, is that if anything, Iran may now actually rush to acquire a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes. If they can't even trust the Israelis not to bomb them with US backing, while negotiations were supposed to be happening, then how can a deal ever be negotiated? Even in the event that the US joins and deals a major blow to the Iranian nuclear program, it doesn't mean that Iran will simply abandon the program altogether. Instead, Tehran could simply end up rebuilding and acquiring the bomb years later. Another outcome of this war could end up being Israeli regime change, which also appears as if it could now be on the table.


Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump has approved Iran attack plan
President Donald Trump has secretly approved plans for a direct US attack on Iran but has yet to give the order to proceed, The Wall Street Journal reports. Tehran has warned that any military intervention by Washington will be met with 'irreparable damage' to the US. Trump has made direct threats against Iran in recent days, while echoing Israeli claims that the Islamic Republic is developing a nuclear weapon. Iran has repeatedly insisted that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. The US president is hoping that the prospect of the US joining Israel's nearly week-long bombing campaign will force Tehran to meet his demands for unconditional surrender, WSJ wrote on Wednesday. Trump told senior aides late on Tuesday that he has endorsed plans for an attack on Iran but is waiting to give the final order until it becomes clear whether Tehran will agree to terminate its nuclear enrichment program altogether, the outlet wrote, citing three sources familiar with the discussions. The US president has asked his advisers whether US Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs can penetrate and destroy Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, which is buried deep in a mountain, Axios wrote on Wednesday, citing an anonymous official. Israel lacks the 30,000-pound (13,600 kg) bunker-busters and has no aircraft capable of carrying them. Nonetheless, Israeli officials have stressed that they will not end the conflict while Fordow remains intact. Six US B-2 Spirits, which are currently the only bombers capable of carrying the MOP, are deployed within attack range of Iran at the joint UK-US Diego Garcia base, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday. Downing Street is concerned that any strikes by the bombers may draw the UK into the conflict, according to the outlet. The US has been concentrating more of its forces in the Middle East in recent days, moving in dozens of tanker planes used for refueling jets in flight and air-defense-capable warships, as well as an additional aircraft carrier group. Trump told the press on Wednesday that he has 'ideas on what to do,' but has not made 'the final decision.' Earlier this week, the president boasted that US jets have unchallenged supremacy in Iranian airspace. He also claimed that killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would be 'easy' and demanded Tehran's 'unconditional surrender.' Khamenei has replied that Iran 'will not capitulate to anyone in the face of coercion.'