Israeli soldiers are seen during an escorted tour of a tunnel the Israeli military said was built by Hamas underneath a United Nations-run school in central Gaza, on February 8, 2024. ‘It is critical that we prevent Iran and other actors from rearming Hezbollah in Lebanon or enabling Hamas to rebuild its military capabilities in Gaza,’ says Jacob Nagel. [Sergey Ponomarev/The New York Times]
Israel’s new national security strategy is outlined to Kathimerini by Brigadier General Jacob Nagel, head of the Nagel Committee established under a directive from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the purpose of developing a comprehensive reform plan for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).
The reform aims to equip the IDF to effectively confront the evolving security landscape that has emerged since the October 7, 2024, attacks.
With 40 years of service in the Israeli Defense Forces, the Ministry of Defense and the National Security Council, Nagel declares that the era of restraint is over. “We will strike those seeking to harm Israel before they can execute their plans,” he says.
He further explains that the new reality demands constant vigilance and a highly adaptable, flexible strategy to ensure swift responses to emerging threats, regardless of their origin.
Your report is proposing a new military doctrine for the Israeli Defense Forces, based on readiness for offensive action. Could you explain it to us?
For decades, our national security doctrine was built on four key pillars: deterrence, early warning, defense, and offense. However, the events of October 7th marked a turning point. We realized that when confronting terrorist organizations, the concept of deterrence must be redefined. Early warning, while still necessary, must evolve to address new threats more effectively. For many years, Israel’s security approach – without judging whether it was right or wrong – prioritized containment and defense. Success was often measured by maintaining quiet, avoiding escalation, and refraining from retaliation, even when attacked. But that era has ended. Our new defense strategy will focus on two core principles: prevention and offense. Prevention means ensuring that no enemy, whether a nation or a terrorist group, breaches our borders. Offense means proactive action – striking those who seek to harm Israel before they can carry out their plans.
Doesn’t this strategic shift you propose carry certain risks for Israel’s defense, especially during a time of heightened challenges?
People misunderstood my report. I am not suggesting abandoning defense. Until now – based on rough estimates, as the exact breakdown of our defense budget isn’t publicly disclosed – we allocated approximately 40% to defense and 60% to offensive capabilities.
As I mentioned earlier, we are shifting our focus towards prevention and proactive action rather than defense and containment. My intention is to adjust this balance to approximately 70% offense and 30% defense – a modest reallocation of just 10%. This shift doesn’t mean we won’t defend ourselves. In fact, sometimes the best defense is a strong offense. A key part of this strategic shift involves redefining how we secure our borders. The events of October 7 must never be repeated. We cannot rely solely on intelligence. Our approach must incorporate multiple layers of protection to safeguard both our civilians and our borders effectively.
Can Israel’s economy handle these changes?
Security requires a strong economy, and a strong economy, in turn, depends on security. The balance lies between protecting quality of life and preserving life itself. Losing a war is not an option for us – it would be our last. Our top priority must be ensuring the security of our people, only then can we focus on enhancing quality of life.
Israel entered this conflict with a remarkably strong economy. Even after a year of war, almost all key economic indicators show that our economy remains robust. This strength allows us to support the strategic adjustments I am proposing without compromising our financial stability.
The report, as expected, identifies Iran as Israel’s primary threat. How should Israel confront this threat? What are your recommendations?
We could discuss Iran for hours. Iran is undeniably the greatest threat to Israel. Unfortunately for them – but fortunately for us – Khamenei’s doctrine aims to destroy Israel through conventional warfare, backed by the threat of nuclear weapons. This is why, in Tehran, there is a clock counting down to the year 2040, when they claim Israel will cease to exist. We will not allow that to happen. Stopping Iran is imperative.
Khamenei’s strategy was to ignite a “ring of fire” around Israel using Hezbollah, Hamas, and other proxies. Yet, despite receiving billions of dollars – funds that could have improved the lives of the Iranian people – these groups ultimately failed him. While this failure is positive, it also presents new challenges. He will likely attempt to rebuild his forces, explore new strategies, or even consider pursuing nuclear weapons more aggressively. I don’t believe he will make that choice now, but he may be waiting to see how President [Donald] Trump will act when he returns to office.
Building a nuclear bomb requires three key components: fissile material, a weaponization system, and a reliable delivery mechanism, primarily missiles. For years, we focused on stopping uranium enrichment, and while that remains critical, it’s no longer enough. We must now also target the development of Iran’s weaponization systems and missile capabilities. Additionally, we should work to weaken the Iranian regime – not to replace it directly, but to diminish its power to the point where its own people recognize the need for change.
Apart from Iran, what other significant threats do you see in this evolving security landscape?
I prefer not to mention other countries by name, as doing so often generates huge headlines. However, after October 7, Israel can no longer afford to take wide margins in risk assessment and management. We must be prepared for sudden shifts in the security landscape. Even with countries that are not in conflict with us today, like Egypt and others, we need to maintain a detailed understanding of developments and remain ready to adapt our strategies if necessary. This requires building a defense force that is highly versatile – capable of shifting focus seamlessly from one front to another. Our preparedness must be constant and adaptable, ensuring we can respond effectively to any emerging threat at a moment’s notice.
You mentioned Egypt, but what about other neighboring countries, like Syria and Lebanon, which are undergoing significant political and military changes?
Of course, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Jordan remain areas where we must ensure the security of our borders and the safety of our citizens. We must stay vigilant to evolving threats and shifts in the region.
In Syria, Israel acted decisively by targeting and neutralizing key Syrian military assets to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorist groups. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has suffered significant losses but still retains the capability to launch attacks against Israel. It is critical that we prevent Iran and other actors from rearming Hezbollah in Lebanon or enabling Hamas to rebuild its military capabilities in Gaza. Ensuring these groups remain weakened is essential to maintaining regional stability and safeguarding Israel’s security.
Israel Middle East Conflict Defense
