Whenever Iran attacks Israel, Israeli society predictably divides into two camps: on one side are those who view the event as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to topple the ayatollah regime; on the other are those who dismiss this as a hopeless illusion.
On the surface, this looks like the classic divide between “doves” and “hawks” – between those who favor diplomatic resolutions and those who believe in military force.
However, a closer look reveals that this isn’t a debate about how to achieve our goals at all. Instead, it exposes a much deeper flaw: a fundamental failure to understand how those goals are determined in the first place.
In recent decades, terms like “strategy” and “exit plan” have become empty buzzwords, slogans stripped of any real, actionable meaning. As military historian Hew Strachan pointed out in his renowned article “The Lost Meaning of Strategy,” the concept has suffered from a dangerous political inflation.
Drawing on Carl von Clausewitz, Strachan reminds us of a fundamental distinction: policy is the logic (the rationale and purpose) of war, while strategy is its grammar. Policy dictates what should happen, while strategy is the (traditionally military) means of making it happen.
If we agree that our ultimate policy goal is to overthrow the regime, we finally have a clear roadmap. From that point on, no military or diplomatic action can be judged solely on tactical metrics. Instead, it must answer one simple question:
Did this action bring us closer to our goal?
Returning to this logic, the most fundamental decision facing us is not a strategic one, but a question of policy. In the current context, I argue that Israel’s only relevant policy must be to actively seek the overthrow of the Iranian regime.
This isn’t wishful thinking; it’s a matter of basic existential logic. Israel simply cannot survive in the long term alongside a regime with such extreme ideology and destructive capabilities. Only after establishing this policy can we – and must we – tackle the strategic question: How do we allocate our available resources to achieve this goal?
Unfortunately, our public and security discourse has devolved into a conceptual mess. Instead of engaging in a structured strategic debate, the arguments get tangled across four distinct channels. First, some attack the policy itself, claiming we misunderstand Iran and that it doesn’t pose a true existential threat.
Second, others argue that toppling the regime is simply an unrealistic goal. A third group concedes the goal might be realistic, but argues the required resources and the price we would pay are too high.
Finally, and ironically, those who do agree in principle on the need for regime change often abandon the strategic discussion entirely. They urge us to blindly trust our leaders, arguing that the public lacks the capacity to judge the situation properly.
To escape this conceptual maze, I propose a new benchmark. If we agree that our policy goal is regime change, we have a clear compass. Every subsequent military or diplomatic move must be judged not by tactical achievements, but by that single, simple question: Did it bring us closer to the goal?
We must ask ourselves what resources we are willing to invest – and what price we will ultimately pay – if we fail to achieve this objective. You cannot pursue a policy without a willingness to pay the price, just as you cannot promote military action without defining how to measure its success.
If we are to have a serious discussion about our future, we must stop hiding behind hollow slogans. It’s time to start an honest, collective conversation – even if we don’t all agree on the final conclusions.
The writer is the CEO of the Ribo Center.