Israel can't bomb its way out of decline
Israel has now been at war with its neighbours for nearly two years. The latest round began with the Hamas-led terrorist attack on 7 October 2023. In response, West Jerusalem launched an aggressive military campaign that has since expanded to touch nearly every country in the region. The escalation has placed the Jewish state at the centre of Middle Eastern geopolitics once again – this time, dragging in Iran, a state that had long avoided direct confrontation through strategic caution. Now, even Tehran finds itself under fire, with US backing making the stakes far higher. Iran is left facing a grim choice between the bad and the very bad.
But this isn't about Iran. It's about Israel, a country that has for decades functioned as the West's forward operating base in the Middle East. Since the mid-20th century, Israel has enjoyed a privileged position – a bridgehead of Western power in a volatile region, while also deeply enmeshed in its politics and rivalries. Its success has rested on two pillars: the unshakable support of the United States, and its own internal capacity for innovation, military strength, and a unique social model.
That second pillar, however, has weakened. The clearest sign is in demographics: Israel is facing rising negative migration. In 2024, some 82,700 people are expected to leave the country – a 50% increase from the year before. It is not the unskilled or disengaged who are leaving, but the young and educated. The people who are needed to sustain a modern state are choosing to go.
Of course, Israel's troubles are not unique. Like many developed nations, it is struggling under the weight of a decaying neoliberal economic system. The pandemic made things worse, exposing the fragility of the model and encouraging a shift toward a 'mobilisation' mode of governance – rule through emergency and constant readiness for conflict. In the West more broadly, war and geopolitical confrontation have become a way to delay or disguise necessary systemic reform.
In this regard, Israel has become a laboratory for the West's emerging logic: permanent war as a method of governance. In the autumn of 2023, the Israeli establishment embraced this fully. Conflict became not just a tactic, but a way of life. Its leaders no longer see peace as the goal, but war as the mechanism for national unity and political survival. In this, Israel mirrors the broader Western embrace of conflict with Russia and China – proxy wars chosen when actual reform is off the table.
At the global level, nuclear deterrence limits how far such wars can go. But in the Middle East, where Israel wages war directly, those constraints don't apply. This allows war to serve as a pressure valve – politically useful, even as it becomes self-destructive.
But even war has limits. It cannot indefinitely mask economic decay or social unrest. And while conflict tends to cement elite power – even among incompetent leadership – it also drains national strength. Israel is now consuming more and more of its own resources to sustain this permanent state of war. Its social cohesion is fraying. Its once-vaunted model of technological and civic progress is no longer functioning as it did.
Some in West Jerusalem may dream of 'reformatting' the Middle East – reshaping the region through force and fear. If successful, it could buy Israel a few decades of security and breathing room. But such outcomes are far from guaranteed. Crushing a neighbour doesn't eliminate the threat; it merely brings distant enemies closer. Most importantly, Israel's deepest problems aren't external – they are internal, rooted in its political and social structures.
War can define a state, yes. But such states – Sparta, North Korea – tend to be 'peculiar,' to put it mildly. And even for them, war cannot substitute for real diplomacy, policy, or growth.
So has Israel, always at war, truly developed? Or has it simply been sustained – politically, militarily, and financially – as a subdivision of American foreign policy? If it continues down this path of permanent conflict and right-wing nationalism, it risks losing even that status. It may cease to be the West's bridge in the Middle East – and become something else entirely: a militarised garrison state, isolated, brittle, and increasingly alone.This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Where China stands on the Israel–Iran conflict
Israel is once again redefining the rules of engagement. Under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Tel Aviv has carried out attacks on Iran with little regard for international law or global opinion. Framing these strikes as preemptive measures against Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions, the Israeli government is echoing the same kind of narrative Washington used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq – claims of weapons of mass destruction that turned out to be unfounded. Beijing sees this ongoing vilification of Iran – driven by both the US and Israel – as dangerous narrative warfare that could lay the groundwork for a broader military conflict. In response, China has taken a clear and firm stance. The Foreign Ministry condemned repeated violations of Iran's sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as actions that risk inflaming tensions across the region. Chinese officials have voiced deep concern about the fallout from the Israeli military operations, calling instead for diplomatic and political solutions. Escalation, they warn, serves no one. Beijing has also expressed a willingness to help de-escalate the situation. China reinforced this position at an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. Ambassador Fu Cong denounced what he called Israel's 'military adventurism,' linking it to the ongoing occupation of Gaza – a crisis he described as a 'humanitarian disaster.' While not directly naming the US, Fu's comments implicitly urged Washington to rein in Israeli aggression before the situation spirals further out of control. Over the weekend, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke by phone with his counterparts in both Iran and Israel. The tone of these two conversations could not have been more different. Speaking with Iran's Seyed Abbas Araghchi, Wang condemned what he called Israel's 'reckless attacks,' warning that strikes on nuclear facilities set a dangerous and unacceptable precedent. He emphasized that such actions violate both the UN Charter and basic principles of international law. In a call with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, Wang took a more restrained but still critical tone, urging Israel to abandon military solutions and return to diplomacy. In this unfolding crisis, China has made its position unmistakably clear: it backs Iran's stance and rejects any military path to resolving the nuclear issue. This aligns with Beijing's long-held diplomatic posture – recognizing Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), while firmly opposing any move toward nuclear weapons, which would violate international norms and run counter to China's vision of a nuclear-free Middle East. Nevertheless, Iran has repeatedly asserted that it does not seek nuclear weapons. It supported the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which collapsed after the United States unilaterally withdrew under President Donald Trump. With Trump's return to the White House, fears were growing that he would once again elevate the Iranian nuclear issue, threatening military action unless Tehran complies with US demands. China and Russia both oppose such unilateral dictate. In March, Beijing hosted a trilateral meeting of Chinese, Iranian, and Russian deputy foreign ministers to reaffirm support for a multilateral, JCPOA-based resolution and denounce illegal sanctions on Iran. In March, Beijing hosted a trilateral meeting with deputy foreign ministers from China, Iran, and Russia, reaffirming their commitment to a multilateral solution rooted in the JCPOA and denouncing illegal sanctions imposed on Iran. China's diplomatic support is part of a broader strategic alignment with Iran. In 2021, the two countries signed a 25-year cooperation agreement covering trade, infrastructure, energy, technology, defense, education, and more – effectively exchanging long-term economic collaboration for a stable oil supply. Despite ongoing US sanctions, China remains Iran's top trading partner and largest buyer of crude oil, purchasing as much as 90% of Iran's exports. The two nations also conduct joint military exercises, such as the Marine Security Belt drills with Russia, launched in 2019. This partnership reflects Iran's 'Look East' strategy, first introduced by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Focused on deepening ties with China and Russia, the strategy has yielded tangible results, including joint initiatives and Iran's accession to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 2023. Yet the relationship isn't without friction. Unfulfilled investment promises, sanctions-related challenges, and mismatched expectations have at times strained the partnership. China seeks stable access to resources and expanded regional influence, while Iran looks for meaningful economic support and advanced technology. Still, China's backing of Iran is not without limits. If Tehran were to block the Strait of Hormuz – a chokepoint for over 25% of global oil and one-third of LNG shipments – China's economic interests would be directly threatened. Likewise, a withdrawal from the NPT would challenge China's commitment to multilateralism and the international legal order. A closer economic and military alignment between Tehran and Beijing could also strain already fraught relations with Washington, especially if it involved significant arms deals. Beijing has no appetite for open confrontation. China prefers to cast itself as a responsible global actor, committed to diplomacy and de-escalation. That image is central to its expanding footprint in the Middle East. Its role in brokering the 2023 rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia was a milestone, but its influence over Tehran remains limited. As a relatively new player in regional diplomacy, China's interests are vulnerable not only to Israeli aggression but also to potential missteps by Iran. So far, Iran's response has been relatively restrained – perhaps deliberately so. But that caution could be misread as weakness. Following the death of President Ebrahim Raisi in May 2024, Iran's leadership has moved slightly closer to engaging with the West. That shift was followed by a wave of Israeli operations: damaging strikes against Hezbollah and Hamas, expanded Israeli presence in Syria, and in October, a direct hit to Iran's missile and air defense systems, potentially paving the way for future attacks. Tehran's muted reaction to these provocations may have been an effort to avoid war – but it risks emboldening its adversaries. For both Beijing and Moscow – each navigating its own rivalry with Washington – the lesson is clear: in today's geopolitical landscape, hesitation can be more dangerous than defiance.
Russia Today
5 hours ago
- Russia Today
BRICS driving ambitious development push
BRICS countries have launched large‑scale joint projects in nuclear power, aviation, AI and other sectors, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said. The economic group is 'setting the bar in the development of so-called human-centric industries,' Putin noted, speaking on Friday at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. The group is mobilizing 'major projects to improve the living environment' and 'implementing large-scale initiatives in nuclear energy and aviation, in the field of new materials and the IT industry, in robotics and artificial intelligence,' the Russian president said. BRICS was initially established in 2006 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining in 2010. In 2024, the bloc extended full membership to Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, the United Arab Emirates, and, later, Indonesia. Over 30 more nations have applied to join the group. The collective trade turnover of BRICS nations has 'already exceeded a trillion dollars and continues to grow,' Putin told a SPIEF plenary session. The Russian leader underlined the platform's core principles – consensus, parity, mutual interest, and openness – saying it will strengthen as more countries join. 'Russia invites partners to contribute to shaping a new global growth model, to jointly ensure the prosperity of our countries and the stable development of the entire world for many, many years to come,' he said. Today's global challenges require a global response, Putin stressed. 'Solving problems alone, especially at someone else's expense, is simply impossible – it is an illusion. Only joint actions within an organization such as BRICS and some other formats can ensure the movement of the entire civilization forward,' the president told the gathering. This year, SPIEF has drawn participants from 137 countries and territories, including global leaders, major corporations, international organizations, and policy experts.
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
UN watchdog report ‘hardly' justification for attack on Iran
Israel's attack on Iran is not justified by the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) latest report, which states there is no evidence that Tehran is developing a nuclear bomb, according to the agency's chief, Rafael Grossi. Israel launched airstrikes against Iran last week, claiming it was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb. Tehran denied the accusation and responded with retaliatory strikes. Israel's attack came several days after the IAEA Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its nonproliferation obligations. The resolution cited Grossi's recent report that Iran had enriched uranium to 60% purity, albeit short of the 90% required for weapons-grade material, and was not cooperating with inspectors. Speaking to CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday, Grossi stressed that the IAEA's report 'could hardly be a basis for military action.' 'Military action, whomever it comes [from], is a political decision that has nothing to do with what we are saying,' he said. Grossi acknowledged that Iran had failed to provide adequate answers to the agency's inquiries, but emphasized that the IAEA 'do not have any indication that there is a systematic program in Iran to manufacture, to produce a nuclear weapon.' He also noted that enriched uranium alone does not equal a bomb. 'We do not have any evidence that this is ongoing in Iran,' he said. Tehran had previously accused the IAEA chief of betrayal, saying his 'biased report' was used to 'craft' the resolution used by Israel to justify its 'unlawful attack.' US intelligence agencies have also maintained there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, US President Donald Trump has dismissed those findings, insisting Iran was 'very close' to getting a bomb when Israel attacked. He has called for Iran's 'unconditional surrender' and warned of possible US involvement if American targets are attacked. Since launching its assault, Israel has hit several Iranian nuclear sites, including in Natanz, Isfahan, and near Tehran. However, the Israeli military reportedly lacks the capability to breach Iran's fortified Fordow facility – built deep within a mountain – and has allegedly asked the US to use its GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, according to Axios. The White House has insisted that Trump had ruled out direct US participation in the strikes. The Wall Street Journal, however, recently claimed the president has already approved a US attack plan but is yet to give the order. Israel's campaign has drawn widespread condemnation. Moscow has accused West Jerusalem of violating international law and warned that US intervention would escalate the crisis.
