“Israel is approaching a historic crossroads” [PART 2 of the INTERVIEW]

Previously, you said that Prime Minister Netanyahu acts primarily in his own political interest rather than in the interest of Israel. In that case, do you also see the confrontation with Iran partly through that lens?

The situation with Iran is extremely complex, but yes, domestic political considerations are part of it. This is a combination of the interests of both Netanyahu and Trump.

For Netanyahu, the Iranian issue has been central to his political identity for more than twenty years. He built much of his public image around the idea that he alone could protect Israel from the Iranian nuclear threat.

At the same time, Iran positioned itself as the only regional actor truly defending the Palestinian cause. Countries such as Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia were increasingly perceived in the Arab world as moving toward normalization with Israel while neglecting the Palestinians. Iran exploited this politically across the Muslim world. Of course, in reality, the Iranians do not care about the Palestinians.

Netanyahu strongly opposed the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama. When Donald Trump entered office, Netanyahu convinced him to withdraw from the agreement and adopt a far more confrontational approach. At the same time, Trump promoted the Abraham Accords, which were historically significant but largely bypassed the Palestinian issue.

The problem is that both Netanyahu and Trump underestimated the limits of military power. Authoritarian regimes and radical movements often prioritize survival above everything else. The Iranian regime, like Hamas, is prepared to sacrifice enormous numbers of its own people to remain in power.

Today, we are witnessing the consequences of that logic. And I do not believe there is a clear exit strategy. Netanyahu does not have it.

I often quote Sun Tzu, who wrote that if you do not understand your enemy, you cannot win a war. He also warned that a cruel ruler will „burn his country to rule over the ashes.” In different ways, we see this mentality in Russia, Iran, Hamas and increasingly in Israel as well.

Anyway, we are fighting not against the enemy himself, but against his strategy. So if you do not understand his culture, and his strategy, you will not be able to win.

So would you say that the war with Iran has been a mistake — perhaps even a failure?

It is difficult to judge wars in real time. We can only fully evaluate them in retrospect. But what we can already say is that none of the major political goals of this confrontation have been achieved. Meanwhile, the costs continue to grow every day.

President Trump’s demands for absolute victory and total surrender ignore modern military realities. This is not World War II; total victory is no longer achievable. In fact, during the Twelve-Day War eight months ago, we already destroyed the vast majority of viable targets in Iran, proving that further escalation yields diminishing returns.

Even a regime change will not bring stability to Iran; instead, it is highly likely to mirror the chaotic aftermath of the 2003 Iraq invasion. Regardless of the internal outcome in Iran, we should anticipate a surge in violence targeting American, Israeli, and Jewish entities globally, spanning from Europe to the Americas. While many will label these actions as antisemitism, they are more accurately understood as a direct geopolitical backlash to events unfolding in the Middle East.

As a former head of the Shin Bet, I have to ask you about October 7, 2023. Many survivors were shocked not only by the Hamas attack itself, but also by the delayed response from Israeli security forces. This has fueled many conspiracy theories. Some people ask how a country with such advanced intelligence capabilities could have been caught completely by surprise.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories. Years ago, when I studied at Harvard University, one of my professors told me that most events in history are explained not by conspiracies but by coincidence and stupidity. I think this applies to Israel on October 7.

The simplest explanation is that nobody in the system asked the necessary questions. In that sense, I sometimes say that what Israel lacked was „a Socrates in the room.” Socrates did not provide grand ideological answers. His role was to ask difficult questions that challenged assumptions. Military institutions, however, are built on hierarchy and obedience. This creates a danger: people stop questioning the dominant concept. We saw this at Attack on Pearl Harbor, during the Yom Kippur War, and again on October 7.

Israeli intelligence actually possessed a great deal of information about Hamas’s plans. The problem was conceptual. The assumption inside the system was that Hamas would never launch such an attack because it would risk losing control of Gaza. That assumption proved catastrophically wrong.

We failed to understand Hamas’s ideology, theology, and strategic culture. As Sun Tzu warned, if you do not understand your enemy, you will misread his intentions.

At the political level, Netanyahu’s broader strategy was based on „managing the conflict” rather than solving it. The idea was that the Palestinian issue could gradually disappear from international politics.

In some ways, this strategy initially appeared successful. Israel normalized relations with several Arab states, while the Palestinian issue faded from global attention.

At the same time, Israel pursued a policy of dividing Palestinian factions. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were kept in competition with one another. The Palestinian Authority increasingly appeared weak and collaborative, while Hamas positioned itself as the only force actively resisting Israel.

Over time, Israeli decision-makers convinced themselves that Hamas preferred stability and governance over war. Intelligence warnings were repeatedly dismissed. This was ultimately not a failure of information. It was a failure of understanding.

Looking back at those initial days of the attack, what was the most profound personal lesson you took away from October 7?

The aftermath of the October 7, 2023, attack taught me a profound lesson. The assault itself did not surprise me; the warning signs were already embedded in the atmosphere, requiring no specialized intelligence to detect. When you are constantly witnessing the raw hatred, suffering, and humiliation experienced by your enemy, you understand that an eruption of violence is inevitable. What I failed to foresee, however, was the precise nature of that violence—the sheer scale of cruelty and the absolute lack of humanity that unfolded over those two or three days.

My final question: what kind of future awaits Israel — both internationally and domestically?

Nobody truly knows. But I believe Israel is approaching a historic crossroads. If Israel does not fundamentally change its policies, I do not believe it will be able to preserve itself as both a Jewish state and a democracy. Nor will it be able to maintain long-term security.

Israel risks losing regional stability as well. Peace with Egypt and Jordan could become increasingly fragile. Normalization with Saudi Arabia may become impossible. Extremist organizations could expand further across the region.

At the same time, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer merely local. It has become a global issue affecting international security, trade, migration, and political stability.

What gives me some optimism is that after October 7 the Palestinian issue returned to the center of international politics. Before that, many believed it could simply be ignored indefinitely. Today, it is clear that no stable regional order can exist without addressing it.

Across much of the world, including Europe, the Arab world, China, and even parts of the United States, there is growing recognition that some form of negotiated two-state framework remains the only realistic path toward long-term stability.

Even many Arab leaders who may not personally prioritize the Palestinian issue understand that their own populations do. After theArab Spring, governments across the region learned that they cannot completely ignore public opinion.

I believe there is still an opportunity ahead of us. But Israel must decide whether it wants to pursue a political solution or continue indefinitely down the current path.

If Israelis do not eventually change course themselves, then international pressure will increasingly push them in that direction.