Israel Must Define Its Own Security Future, Even If It Means Clashing With Washington

The article argues that Israel faces a defining sovereignty test as rockets continue from Lebanon and Washington advances a new deal with Iran. Its core claim is that Israel should not settle for tactical blows against Hezbollah in Lebanon while Iran, the real strategic threat, keeps its nuclear program, missile arsenal, and regional proxy network intact.

The writer says Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas, and other Shiite militias are all arms of Tehran, not separate problems. In that view, Israel should make clear that responsibility for the war carried out by those groups lies primarily with the Iranian regime. The piece also rejects the idea that negotiations with Tehran and the fighting in Lebanon are separate tracks, saying they are part of the same campaign.

Citing U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s remark that even world wars ended through agreements, the article counters that durable agreements come only after the aggressor is defeated. It points to Germany, Japan, and the Ottoman Empire as examples of powers that were not allowed to rebuild militarily while negotiations were underway. The author warns that after nearly three years of war, Israel should not stop at partial success while Iran remains powerful.

The piece says the war has already exacted a heavy price, with thousands of families bereaved, hundreds of thousands of reservists mobilized, and the Israeli economy badly damaged. If Israel must confront the United States, the writer argues, it should be over Iran’s strategic threat, not a limited fight in Lebanon. It frames this as a test for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long described Iran as Israel’s main enemy, and concludes that Israel should cooperate with the U.S. but not become, in the author’s words, the “Czechoslovakia of the 21st century.”