Wars: Easier to Start than Finish

How and when this war will end is uncertain
Photo: AP Images
Emotions and adrenaline levels are running high in Israel. The mood swings range from elation over successful military operations in Iran to anxiety-filled nights spent with a cellular phone at the bedside, anticipating the ominous buzz of a Homefront Command warning to seek shelter from deadly missile attacks. How and when this war will end is uncertain, and the outlook could change rapidly. But amid all the dangers, many positive developments are reshaping the Middle East landscape.
The US and Israel Traded Favors
Did President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu collude to deceive Iran by creating the impression that the US opposed the IDF taking military action while negotiations over a nuclear deal were still underway? Or did Netanyahu act alone, fearing that Trump would strike a deal with Iran that would garner international support, making it impossible for Israel to attack Iran without becoming a pariah state? There is a lot of spin in both directions. The truth may lie somewhere in between, but it’s irrelevant now.
The mixed messaging serves both American and Israeli purposes. Israel has an interest in demonstrating that Trump and Netanyahu are in sync. Trump is playing a more difficult hand. He boasts of Israel’s military prowess, pleasing his pro-Israel constituency, while his insistence that America is not involved in Israeli strikes and his call to Iran to resume negotiations reassure his domestic right-wing base that he is adhering to his policy of keeping the US out of foreign entanglements.
Regardless, Israel has made significant progress in restoring its deterrent posture with a diversified and well-planned preemptive strike against Iran, which doomsayers claimed Israel could never achieve alone, while also absolving Trump of any blame. Assuming that Iran lacks the desire or capability to restart talks, Trump is no longer at risk of damaging his reputation as a dealmaker by either entering into an agreement that Iran would never honor or being forced to admit that the negotiations had failed.
The Art of the Deal, Mideast Style
On the subject of negotiations, perhaps the Trump administration and the Western world can learn a lesson from their frustrating experiences in dealmaking with Hamas and the Iranian ayatollahs. Credit for the following concepts is due to Yoram Ettinger, a former congressional affairs liaison to Israel’s embassy in Washington. He has amassed extensive knowledge of Arab culture and negotiating tactics. In the June 9 edition of his weekly Ettinger Report, he contends that US negotiators are taking a “self-destructive step” in basing negotiations with terror regimes on the Western concept of reconciliation, ignoring the concepts that Iranians employ in such talks.
One of those concepts is taarof, which Ettinger described as referring to the negotiator’s use of subjective cultural, emotional, psychological, philosophical, or religious meanings of words rather than the objective, literal dictionary definition. As each side interprets the language of the agreement differently, this allows the Muslim side to lead the Western negotiator into making false assumptions without resorting to outright lies.
Ettinger noted a few more terms to consider, including taqiyyah — a tactic of subterfuge based on a verse in the Koran that obligates the believer to conceal one’s true intentions if the aim is to mislead a superior military infidel; khod’eh, a uniquely Iranian tactic of misinformation and disinformation rather than outright deception, causing the infidel to misjudge the believer’s true position; and last but not least, kitman, which refers to deceit by omission, evasion, silence, ambiguity, or paying lip service to the infidel.
All of the above is the art of the deal, Muslim style. Know your customer.
Jewish Unity Is Nonnegotiable
Israelis — and, by extension, Jews worldwide — need to internalize from recent experiences that we must strive to find common ground that we can all rally around while toning down public divisiveness and backbiting.
In the early days of Israel’s military campaign against Iran, the opposition united behind Netanyahu’s decision. Both Avigdor Lieberman and Yair Lapid have expressed support for the IDF operation. Even Ben Caspit, one of the most vocal anti-Netanyahu reporters on the Israeli left, wrote a column in Maariv stating that although he opposes continuing the Gaza war, people should support Netanyahu in what he calls our existential battle with Iran.
Hunkering down in safe rooms on Motzaei Shabbos was stressful. The Chief Rabbinate’s order to keep synagogues closed due to the Homefront Command’s prohibition on public gatherings was painful. Still, it was also a relief to be spared the ritual Saturday night anti-government demonstrations that have divided the country ever since this new government began introducing its package of judicial reforms in early 2023.
Israel’s enemies, lacking experience with democracy and robust public debates, misinterpret our differences of opinion as indicative of a weak society. The right-left political divide has affected Israel as much as it has any other nation, including the US. We shouldn’t have reached the point where we needed this major confrontation with Iran to learn how to disagree respectfully and amicably.
Avoid Victory Disease Like the Plague
Despite everything Israel has faced in the past two years, there is still much to be grateful for. Enemies continue to surround Israel, but they have never been weaker. Israel has extended its control over territories in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, which provide it with more strategic depth.
We still don’t know how the war with Iran will unfold. However, as Israel approaches its second anniversary of the conflict, it must develop a back-pocket exit strategy to maximize its gains and deflect international pressure to return to the status quo before October 7, 2023, unless it is prepared to boldly apply full force to deliver a knockout blow to its enemies. Knowing when to pause and create breathing room always presents a strategic challenge.
A year ago, US Army strategist James Micciche wrote a column for War Room, the online journal of the United States Army War College, titled “Concluding Conflict: Why Ending War Is Never an Easy Strategy.” He cited the concept of “victory disease,” where the winning side reaches a stage of “extreme, almost euphoric, condition of overconfidence.”
“The enemy always gets a vote,” Micciche wrote. “In war, no belligerent has sole agency in determining when a war ends, further complicating the ability for warring parties to end a conflict even if and when one wishes.”
Perhaps this won’t apply to Israel’s current battles, which we all pray will be settled miraculously. However, at some point, the Israeli government may have to declare victory and call a timeout. “Strategists must ensure that war, as a tool of statecraft, supports political objectives, enabling the cessation of hostilities and optimizing post-conflict outcomes,” Micciche says.
(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1066)
Oops! We could not locate your form.