JERUSALEM—As Israeli defense forces advance operations against Iranian-backed terror networks across Gaza and the wider region, leaders and analysts emphasize the depth of historical strategy informing Israel’s actions—and the learning curve facing the United States, a relatively recent actor on the Middle Eastern geopolitical stage.
The phrase, “What the Iranians forgot thousands of years ago, the Americans have yet to begin to understand,” captures the unique role of memory and historical experience in shaping the region’s behavior. This context is central to understanding the current war, which Israel describes as fundamentally defensive—a response to existential threats imposed by a Tehran-led coalition employing asymmetric, proxy warfare.
The Historical Dimension of Modern War
Iran’s approach to regional power and influence is driven by a legacy stretching back to the Persian empires. Today’s Islamic Republic adapts ancient patterns of influence, deploying modern proxies such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and affiliated militias in Syria and Iraq. Each is supported by funding, weapons, and training from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), in pursuit of Iran’s goal to destabilize adversaries and extend its reach without direct confrontation with major powers.
For Israel, the war imposed by this axis is existential. The memory of exile, centuries-long struggles, and near destruction in the Holocaust underpin doctrine and society. The October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre—the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since World War II—reaffirmed for Israelis that their security can never be outsourced or taken for granted. The multi-layered missile defense systems, robust military innovation, and relentless intelligence-gathering reflect this deep-seated imperative.
American Policy: Navigating Regional Complexity
American involvement in the Middle East, especially since World War II, has alternated between support for strategic allies and efforts to balance competing interests. The Abraham Accords, brokered during President Donald Trump’s term, showcased American ability to reshape alliances. Yet, the resurgence of Iranian-backed violence and the unprecedented atrocities of October 7 highlighted the limits of distance and negotiation. U.S. policymakers, including recent administrations, are now accelerating their learning, confronting the layered realities that Israelis and, to a degree, Iranians have lived for generations.
Washington’s emphasis on de-escalation and negotiation often clashes with the entrenched logic of survival that drives Israeli policy. Diplomatic rifts emerge over red lines and military tactics, but Israeli leaders, from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, repeatedly stress the necessity of independent self-defense. The trust deficit grows when outside actors misjudge the costs—and nature—of proxy warfare directed from Tehran.
War Imposed by Iranian Proxies
The current conflict is far broader than Gaza. The Iranian regime coordinates and funds an arc of armed groups: Hamas and Islamic Jihad launch rockets and brutal assaults from Gaza; Hezbollah directs tens of thousands of missiles from Lebanon; the Houthis target southern Israel and allied shipping from Yemen; and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria strike Israelis and U.S. outposts alike. This method, rooted in Iran’s imperial history, enables Tehran to exploit instability while avoiding, for now, a direct conventional clash with Israel or the United States.
Israeli officials document a calculus learned from history: every day of Israeli restraint is counted by adversaries as indecision or weakness; every pause is used by Iranian proxies for re-arming and entrenchment. The abduction of Israeli women, children, and elderly on October 7—and the systematic atrocities perpetrated by Hamas—shocked the country but also reinforced the necessity of military response. The fate of these hostages, taken unlawfully and in direct violation of international norms, remains core to Israel’s operational objectives and diplomatic engagement.
In contrast, prisoners released from Israeli jails as part of hostage exchanges are convicted terrorists, a distinction often lost or blurred in international coverage. Israeli officials demand this legal and moral separation be clearly recognized.
Israel’s Strategic Response: Learning from the Past
From its prestate Yishuv defenses to high-tech anti-missile systems today, Israel’s doctrine combines innovation with hard-learned lessons from defeat and victory. Asymmetric warfare, complex urban environments, and information operations are met with tailored responses, including precision strikes and urban combat tactics. The Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow defense architecture, alongside advanced intelligence and cyber capabilities, exemplify the combination of ancestral recall and modern necessity.
Former Israeli National Security Adviser Yaakov Amidror notes, “Our posture is a product of memory—memory of past destruction, betrayal, and the cost of naiveté.” These lessons inform every aspect of Israeli operations and underline the limits of short-term or superficial solutions advocated by some Western actors.
American-Israeli Relations: Alliance Under Strain
Despite strong political and military ties, the U.S. and Israel sometimes diverge over tactics and diplomatic timing. Israeli officials maintain that sovereignty requires the final say on self-defense, even in the face of criticism from allies or international bodies like the United Nations or Amnesty International. Accusations of “disproportionate force” are met with detailed explanations of Israeli compliance with the laws of war and the unique challenges posed by nonstate actors using civilians as shields—a war crime documented and condemned by Israel.
The Broader Regional Stakes
The war Israel is fighting is not against a localized enemy but an axis driven by the strategic and ideological imperatives of the Iranian regime. Should Iranian ambitions succeed—directly or through proxies—the entire region faces deeper polarization, continued instability, and the risk of wider war. Israel’s struggle is therefore seen by many analysts as the frontline of a broader battle for the future of the Middle East, and for the nature of international order in a world where revisionist powers use asymmetric conflict to challenge democratic states.
For U.S. officials and wider Western policy circles, the lesson is clear: robust support for Israel and deeper understanding of the historical drivers of conflict are critical to preventing escalation and, ultimately, to any prospect for long-term stability.
Conclusion: The Imperative of Understanding
The wisdom embedded in Israeli and, to a lesser extent, Iranian statecraft is a function of long, tumultuous experience. As the United States faces the demands of proxy conflict and regional insecurity, only by internalizing these lessons—about patience, deterrence, alliances, and existential threats—can it hope to forge effective strategy. In a conflict shaped by centuries, every misstep carries consequences measured not in headlines, but in the security of nations and the fate of entire populations.
