The absence of strategic planning has become a chronic affliction of states, governments, and institutions. This silent epidemic, the death of strategic thinking, manifests in hollow rhetoric, short-term reactions in place of proactive initiatives, and a lack of clear direction.
In the business world, even mid-sized corporations maintain five-year plans with defined goals, market expansion strategies, and risk management frameworks. Yet in the security and political realms, particularly in Israel, and often in the US and Europe, the opposite is true. Short-term political declarations have replaced structured thinking. Everything feels personal, temporary, and unstable.
So what does a sound strategy look like?
In the first phase, you need to craft a vision of the future that you want. In doing so, strategy is a compass. It cannot predict the future, but it can prepare you for it. It requires a deep understanding of the environment, identifying trends and vectors, and defining guiding principles. The second phase, let’s call it "operational translation," involves translating the vision into a concrete action plan: Where are the gaps? What budget is required? What technologies should be developed? What diplomatic tools are necessary?
One Israeli example of sound strategic vision is the Arrow 3 missile defense project that was conceived in the 1990s. It only proved its value in the last two years in response to long-range ballistic threats from third-party nations.
Credit where credit is due - the IDF and Israel’s security establishment
They all failed on October 7, both at the political level and in the IDF.
It is important to recognize the IDF and other security agencies for building structured strategic depth. Multi-year plans (known in Hebrew as "Tnufa," "Gideon", and others) were systematically developed, based on threat assessments, future force design, capability evaluations, and advanced technology development. The Israeli Air Force has been preparing for conflict with Iran for decades, acquiring cutting-edge aircraft and training personnel for evolving platforms and systems.
Yet at the political level, no comprehensive national strategy was formulated. Governments failed to allocate budgets, make operational decisions, or implement the plans.
For example, there was no holistic strategy to address rocket fire from Gaza. The IDF adopted a purely defensive posture rather than a strategic blend of defense and offense, which is essential for true deterrence.
And no proactive normalization strategy was pursued by Israel. Rather than fostering regional alliances with moderate Arab states, the issue remained reactive and underutilized.
Lessons from the past - Yemen, Syria, and Ben-Gurion Airport
The lack of a national strategy even post October 7 led to misjudged restraint toward missile fire from Yemen, no coherent policy toward Lebanon, and inadequate response to the collapse of civil aviation infrastructure after the Houthi attack on Ben-Gurion Airport.
No Western nation today would repeatedly send its civilians to shelters without a defined deterrent price tag. In Israel, deterrence is eroding. There is no coherent policy, no consistent deterrent mechanism, and no long-term resolve.
What is the world doing? Is there strategy or is it chaos?
There are several countries with coherent strategic frameworks. China’s "Vision 2049" aims for global technological, military, and economic dominance, supported by clear policies like "Made in China 2025." Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates’s "Vision 2030" integrates security, sustainability, tech investment, and planned normalization efforts. And in Europe, France operates under a multi-year defense strategy focusing on expanding air capabilities, nuclear deterrence, and European security autonomy.
In America, meanwhile, the first Trump administration (2017–2021) offered a unique blend of bold vision and institutional disarray.
On one hand, there were dramatic policy shifts that included the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, unveiling the “Deal of the Century.” The Abraham Accords were also an undeniable strategic-diplomatic achievement. On the other hand, there was no structured institutional framework or coherent action plans, and there was excessive centralization, inconsistency, canceled agreements, and failure to build sustainable partnerships.
Ultimately, it wasn’t a national strategy; it was the rule of whims. Some bore fruit, but none built enduring foundations.
Technology as strategy
The nature of national security is evolving and requires a dedicated technological strategy where the nation is prepared for war against a state enemy.
That includes a future-based acquisition concept whose guiding principles are: the readiness for unconventional scenarios; modularity, scalability, and rapid upgradeability; multidimensional integration (land, air, sea, cyber, space) and close integration with defense industries, start-ups, and research institutes.
The main acquisition categories should be focused on robotic and autonomous combat, precision and cheap weapons, multi-layered defense capabilities, cyber and electronic warfare, and combat capability in urban areas saturated with civilians.
The strategy should also include the digitization and integration of AI, as well as investing in the wars of consciousness, where systems for spreading narrative and psychological warfare are paramount, by advancing AI platforms that can create positive deepfakes and other content. The focus should also be on protecting digital assets.
The day after
The "day after" is not a PR narrative; it is a central element of national strategy and includes restoring public trust, reviving the economy, healthcare, and tourism. Societal rifts must also be healed by addressing the needs of the wounded, hostages, and their families-not as a welfare issue, but as a pillar of national resilience.
The day after must also include crafting a new normalization map with states like Saudi Arabia and agreements with neighboring Syria, Lebanon, and even the Gaza Strip.
Conclusion - the urgent call for strategy
Without a national strategy, we are navigating in the dark. With a strategy, we have a compass, even when the winds blow against us. Strategy is not a partisan doctrine. It is a moral, security, economic, and social imperative.
Now is the time to demand a coherent national strategy and to end the practice of reinventing the wheel with every leadership change. The State of Israel cannot sustain itself without long-term strategic planning.
Let us remember the vision of David Ben-Gurion: “The whole nation is an army; the entire land is the front.”
He championed the need for continuous preparedness, self-defense capabilities, and unwavering determination to protect the state.
He also stated that “the IDF’s deterring and crushing arm is our guarantee for peace.”
Ben-Gurion did not view military power as a threat but as a guarantor of peace. He believed in national strategic thinking, including developing the Negev ("In the Negev, the people of Israel will be tested.”) and sustained immigration ("Aliyah is the essence of our existence.")
It is not too late. Now is the time to return to strategic thinking to secure our future.