Israel does not have the luxury of nostalgia.
Not after October 7. Not after the most devastating security failure in its modern history. And certainly not now, as it faces not just terrorist organizations on its borders but a widening regional conflict in which Iran is no longer a distant sponsor but an active participant.
This is no longer the Israel of limited operations and contained escalations. This is a fundamentally different war.
And yet, much of Israel’s leadership, and more importantly its strategic thinking, remains rooted in the assumptions of the past.
That is the problem.
For nearly two decades, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shaped Israel’s security doctrine. To his credit, that doctrine delivered real achievements. It emphasized deterrence over occupation, technological superiority over prolonged entanglement, and economic growth alongside relative stability. Israel became stronger, more prosperous, and more regionally integrated under his leadership.
But doctrines are not meant to survive unchanged when reality shifts this dramatically. And reality has shifted.
The changing reality of the conflict
Iran is no longer operating solely through proxies. It has launched direct missile and drone attacks, expanded its operational footprint, and helped orchestrate sustained, coordinated pressure across multiple fronts. What was once a shadow war has become something far more direct and far more dangerous.
At the same time, Hezbollah in the north, Hamas in Gaza, and other Iranian-backed forces are acting in increasing alignment, creating a persistent, multi-front threat environment that Israel has never faced at this scale.
This is not an evolution of the old model. It is its collapse.
The assumption that these threats could be contained, managed, and deterred without fundamentally changing the strategic landscape has been exposed as dangerously outdated. The belief that Israel could maintain long-term quiet through limited rounds of escalation has not just weakened. It has failed.
And yet, despite this rupture, the leadership, and the thinking behind it, remains largely intact.
Israel is now confronting a new kind of war. It is direct, multi-front, and continuous. It is a conflict where state and non-state actors operate in coordination, where deterrence is tested daily, and where hesitation carries consequences that extend far beyond any single front.
This environment does not reward continuity. It demands change.
The argument here is not personal. It is structural.
The time for new leadership
No leader, no matter how experienced, can remain in power for this long without becoming deeply tied to the assumptions that defined their tenure. Over time, those assumptions harden. Strategies become habits. Caution becomes instinct. And the ability to rethink foundational beliefs becomes more difficult, precisely when it is most necessary.
That is not a uniquely Israeli problem. It is a universal one. But in Israel’s case, the stakes are far higher.
Because the next phase of this conflict will not resemble the last. It will not be defined by isolated operations or temporary flare-ups. It will be shaped by sustained pressure from a coordinated Iranian axis, by the normalization of direct confrontation with a regional power, and by a battlefield that is expanding in both geography and intensity.
In that reality, continuity is not stability. It is a risk.
This is not about being for or against Netanyahu. It is about recognizing that the system, strategy, and assumptions built under his leadership have been tested, and that Israel must now decide whether they are still sufficient for what comes next.
Israel needs leadership that is prepared to ask different questions.
What does victory mean in a war that now includes direct state-level confrontation?
How should deterrence be reestablished against an adversary like Iran that is willing to absorb and escalate?
What is the long-term strategy not just for Gaza or Lebanon but for a region increasingly aligned against Israel?
And most importantly, what must change, not just operationally but conceptually, for Israel to avoid repeating the same failures on a larger scale?
These are not questions that can be answered by refining the existing playbook. They require writing a new one.
That does not mean dismissing past success. It means recognizing when those successes no longer apply. It means understanding that the strength of a democracy lies not only in its resilience but in its ability to renew itself, especially in moments of crisis.
Israel has always been defined by its ability to adapt under pressure, to rethink, rebuild, and move forward even in the face of existential threats.
Now it must apply that same principle to leadership. Because Israel’s next war is not coming. It is already here.
And it cannot be led by yesterday’s leadership.
The writer is an Israeli-American Modern Orthodox Jew and founder of SZM, a social media movement advocating for the safety of Jewish New Yorkers and empowering the next generation of Jewish voices.