X Close

Has Israel’s strategy changed? It is targeting entire command structures

(Credit: Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty)

(Credit: Ahmad Al-Rubaye/AFP/Getty)


October 15, 2024   5 mins

Largely unremarked amid the drama, risk and controversy of its reaction to the October 7 attack is that, over the past year, Israel has experimented with a new type of warfare: targeting its enemies’ entire command structures. The occasional tactical assassination is as old as time, of course, and in the modern age has been commonly practised not just by Mossad but also the US, Russia and India, among many other governments.

What’s new about the recent Israeli method, however, is that it doesn’t stop at one or two important figures. Rather, they’ve gone after leaders, planners, strategists, figureheads and key implementers, with the obvious goal of not merely slowing down the adversary but actually crippling them, ideally beyond repair, and turning the population against them by demonstrating just how damaging these leaders are to their quality of life. 

It’s too soon to say if this will become a key tactic in Israel’s arsenal, whether it will prove effective in the long run, and what responses it might draw from their enemies. Yet what we can speculate on is this: might a strategy that emphasises the enemy’s decision makers turn out to be good news for civilians? 

The goal of bombing across many previous conflicts, notably the Second World War, was to demoralise the citizenry through starvation and destruction. As late as 2003, meanwhile, the goal of the US bombing blitz in Baghdad was to cow the Iraqi population into a state of “shock and awe”. The current Israeli goal, at least in theory, is to eliminate the people and infrastructure of their sworn enemies. This is a significant difference, and is potentially epoch-making. 

The unjust distribution of the costs of war have been one of its eternal features. Wars are declared by leaders, planned by generals, fought by often-reluctant footsoldiers and endured in misery by the population at large. To put it differently, it’s always been ordinary people, the conscripts on the frontlines and the mass of civilians behind, who bore the brunt of any war, and this hasn’t changed. According to the Red Cross, a full 90% of war-time casualties remain civilians.

In theory, these civilian losses are “collateral” damage, unintentional and regrettable consequences of fights between armed combatants. But the evidence shows that most lethal action against civilians is either deliberate, or else represents a consequence that was known in advance and judged to be acceptable. You don’t bomb a city like Dresden without realising that you’ll be burying women, children and the elderly in the rubble, with an estimated 30,000 perishing in February 1945. 7,500 civilians died during America’s initial bombardment of Baghdad, and thousands more were traumatised and maimed. 

What if 2003 had gone differently? What if, instead of invading the country, the Americans had simply killed Saddam and his inner circles in a focused strike? There might have been no insurgency, no sectarian slaughter, no eventual Iranian triumph. Or, to return to the Second World War, what if the Allies had tasked Oppenheimer with focusing his scientific genius on developing missiles instead of atomic bombs, with the goal of destroying Hitler and his advisors in the Eagle’s Nest? What, to put it bluntly, if they’d targeted Hirohito not Hiroshima? Would that not have sacrificed one life for thousands? 

It’s hardly a new question. I grew up with it. My grandmother, cynical over a lifetime of catastrophic military ventures that saw her survive the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the loss of two world wars, and the Soviet occupation of her country, perennially greeted global conflict with the comment that “the big shots with their big ideas should fight it out directly” and leave the civilians out of it. But, to reluctantly quote Steve Bannon, this was a pipe dream, because “the aristos never fight”. 

“The big shots with their big ideas should fight it out directly”

And in fact, over more recent decades, psychopathic dictators not only sidestepped punishment, but were allowed comfortable exiles overseas. That’s what happened with Baby Doc Duvalier, the erstwhile Haitian despot, or Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Republic, who both found themselves living the high life in France. Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay, protector of Josef Mengele and killer of political opponents, was hosted by Brazil. The theory behind this genteel approach was that a cornered dictator would fight to the death, thereby prolonging the bloodshed. Offer him an attractive way out, and more slaughter could be avoided. 

Over time, though, this solution became less acceptable to global public opinion, ushering in our current era of sanctions and International Criminal Court arrest warrants. The approach sounded salient on paper, but in truth the ICC lacks any real muscle and has rarely proved effective either as a deterrent or as an instrument of justice. Just ask Vladimir Putin. 

The Israeli approach, then, represents a far more impressive reframing of the question of accountability. As we’ve discovered, war always assumes collective guilt. But are civilians truly more deserving of punishment for the decisions of their leaders than those rulers themselves? “They went along with it,” we may say. And that’s true. Too often, indeed, fanatical leaders can count on the hysterical enthusiasm of the masses. “They elected them,” we point out, and that sometimes applies too. 

Yet civilian populations are usually motivated by little more than the chance to prosper. Most people, moreover, are not heroes of the resistance. American voters did not choose a president in the knowledge that he would become obsessed with non-existent WMDs in Iraq. The fateful decisions, in short, are made at the top. What does a corporation do when it’s in trouble? Does it fire the entire staff, or replace the CEO? Isn’t it then both more just, and arguably more efficient, to go after the leaders?

A stronger objection comes from political scientists. While they generally agree that “decapitating” an enemy by taking out its leader is psychologically effective, they argue that the impact only lasts until a successor emerges, and all you may have achieved in the end is having created a martyr. What’s different now is that Israel seems to be aiming well beyond mere psychology, and is instead working to disable the broader command structures of its foes. It has focused on disrupting the enemy’s communication channels, as well as preventing new leaders from taking over. Just a day after killing Hassan Nasrallah, the IDF also targeted his Hezbollah successor. 

From there, the list continues. Ali Karaki (Nasrallah’s longtime adviser); Eid Hassan Nashar (the commander of Hezbollah’s medium-range rocket force); Samir Tawfiq Dib (the commander of its southern front); Nabil Kaouk (deputy head of its central council); all these, and many more, have been killed in Israeli strikes. Nor has the IDF neglected its main ideological enemy: Iran. The assassination of top Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh, while he was staying at an official military guesthouse in Tehran, is an excellent example. The suspicious death of Iran’s former president Raisi in a helicopter crash may or may not have been an accident — but anyway bears striking similarities to Israeli actions elsewhere.

To be clear, I’m not ignoring the appalling number of civilian casualties in Gaza, nor the impact on Lebanon. Nor do we yet know how other players may respond to this emerging new style of warfare. Mossad’s recent pager attack is a remarkable piece of spycraft, untangling adversaries from their surroundings. It plucked the Hezbollah members from the crowd, albeit imperfectly. But the similar weaponisation of daily items could plausibly yet be deployed by the West’s enemies too, with obviously unpredictable consequences. 

So far, though, our assessment must be: tactical advantage Israel. Even after taking some time to think it over, Iran hasn’t been able to react innovatively to Israel’s attacks, instead launching its usual knee-jerk show of missiles into established Israeli defences. 

If, then, we want to be optimistic: there’s a chance that Israel’s focus on going after the “brains behind the operations” might make leaders think twice before sending their lackeys off to die. And if not, it may at least drive a salutary wedge between violent-minded ideologues and the population at large, as the latter recognises that they’re better off without them. In fact, this may already be happening in Lebanon, where criticism of Hezbollah is beginning to be voiced by politicians and the public at large. Netanyahu’s message that the Lebanese people aren’t the enemy will need, in light of the damage they’re suffering, to be amplified with concrete offers of cooperation and support.


Cheryl Benard is an academic and an author.

 


Subscribe
Notify of
guest

36 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
25 days ago

It’s articles like these that make an Unherd subscription worthwhile. My compliments to the chef, by all means my compliments to the chef! 🙂

The young men march to war, while the old men (and women) plan, enact, and execute the actions of the battlefield. So it has ever been. If the leader in his comfortable armchair felt a small measure of the pain his people feel, he may not be so ready to send them off to die.

Nasrallah learnt this lesson, to his cost. Indeed, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, so I’ve heard …..

Israel has a local martial arts called ‘Krav Maga’, or ‘Close Combat’. It focuses on ending a fight in the shortest time, doing the unexpected, seeking an opponent’s weakness, and never giving up. I find it springs from the country’s character, which is formed by the people.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
25 days ago

Thanks for this. Excellent essay!!

Harry Phillips
Harry Phillips
25 days ago

Whatever the thinking, the pager/radio strikes were spectacularly impressive.

Martin M
Martin M
24 days ago
Reply to  Harry Phillips

Yes. All the more so because the (now deceased) Head Honcho of Hezbollah came up with the idea to use pagers for “security reasons”.

Martin M
Martin M
25 days ago

Taking out the leader in isolation may not work as well as intended. I recently read a view on the merits of the Allies killing Hitler during WW2. The view expressed was that while it may have made sense early in the war, it didn’t make sense later, because Hitler was such a terrible military commander, and always meddled in military decisions he should have stayed out of (eg. Stalingrad). Had he been killed in (say) 1942, he might have been replaced by someone who was more competent militarily, which might have meant the war went longer.

Brett H
Brett H
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

replaced by someone who was more competent militarily, which might have meant the war went longer.
Only if they thought they might win and they believed in the cause. I believe the Wehrmacht officers who attempted to assassinate Hitler were planning to make peace with the allies.

Martin M
Martin M
24 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

They might have been planning that, but all indications were that Hitler would have been replaced by someone who was every bit as much of a fanatical Nazi as he was. Plus, I think most of the “peace” proposals were with the Western Allies. Hard to imagine Stalin (an equally fanatical dictator) wanting peace.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
24 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

Interesting comment for sure.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
21 days ago
Reply to  Martin M

This is a Shia organisation. The Shia have a highly trained educated and trained elite cadre of leaders and the rest of the organisations comprises poorly educated trained people of low intelligence. Killing the top three levels makes sense. The Shia have four levels of clergy Grand Ayatollahs, Ayatollahs, Hojat al-islam va al-Moslemeen and Mullah. Think of the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages with no Pope but 6 Cardinals, 6 Archbishops/Bishops, Monsignors and Priests.

Martin Bollis
Martin Bollis
24 days ago

It’ll never catch on. Going for the top dogs invites retaliation in kind. Much more ego boosting to just send the cannon fodder.

Chris Whybrow
Chris Whybrow
24 days ago

I feel like the author vastly downplays the scale of civilian casualties inflicted by Israel. They aren’t exactly winning hearts and minds. They can kill as many enemy leaders as they wish, the civilians they brutalise will simply raise up more to take their place.
TL/DR Mossad are exceptionally intelligent, the IDF are idiots.

Martin M
Martin M
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

Hamas and Hezbollah do make a practice of “hiding behind civilians” though.

Brett H
Brett H
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

They aren’t exactly winning hearts and minds. 
Which hearts and minds?

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

By that logic, the USA shouldn’t have bombed Japan; the UK shouldn’t have bombed Germany. It would have “raised up” more people to take up Nazism and Japanese imperialism, per you. Instead, we need an “immediate ceasefire” and a “negotiated solution”. The Nazis would still be around today.

O'Driscoll
O'Driscoll
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

How do you win hearts and minds? The Palestinians raped, mutilated and murdered, took hostages, paraded victims around Gaza, tortured grandmothers, teenagers and men alike from October 7th onwards, and yet there are still thousands of people turning out every week to march in support of them. Seems like they managed to win hearts and minds by behaving like monsters. The Israelis have made efforts to avoid civilian casualties yet are vilified by students, left-wingers and Islamists.

Haters gonna hate, as the kids have it these days.

George K
George K
24 days ago
Reply to  O'Driscoll

“The Palestinians raped, mutilated and murdered, took hostages, paraded victims around Gaza, tortured grandmothers, teenagers and men alike from October 7th onwards”
Correction: Palestinians murdered, took hostages and paraded victims around Gaza ( just what Israel does on the daily basis ). As it turns out all reports of rape and babies burnt alive were the product of informational warfare to put it mildly.


Brett H
Brett H
23 days ago
Reply to  George K

That’s a pretty big statement. You should be able to provide a reliable link for that information with no trouble.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
23 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

They provided the information, Within hours Hamas was broadcasting such things. I watched stunned as the body of a young Israel girl, clearly defiled, halt clothed, was driven around Gaza in a pickup truck with men women and children cheering and filming it on their phones. Maybe you need to read far more widely? Try youtube, I believe the Hamas videos are still there if you confirm you are an adult viewer.

Brett H
Brett H
22 days ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Misunderstanding I think. I was referring to the idea that the atrocities committed by Hamas did not happen.
As it turns out all reports of rape and babies burnt alive were the product of informational warfare

Bob Bobbington
Bob Bobbington
19 days ago
Reply to  George K

They filmed it themselves and published it. There is extensive video footage of the horrors Hamas enacted. How is it misinformation?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
23 days ago
Reply to  O'Driscoll

What is it with Islam that they hate women, and young girls in particular?

Brett H
Brett H
22 days ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

What is it with Islam that they hate women, and young girls in particular?
Yes, I think so. The question is why?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
23 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

The Civilians in Gaza, filmed by their own, cheered the display of the body of a young Israeli girl that had been ‘defiled’ on Oct 7th Put bunkers under their houses and I’m amazed the Israelis even phoned to tell the occupants to get out before they hit the bunkers. Israel is fighting an existential war for them AND for us. It is the ignorant like you who risk us losing it. Iran’s Ayatollah’s with a nuclear bomb will one day use it in the name of their God. Better hope it isn’t in your neighbourhood. What manner of philosophy is it that targets and brutalises young girls? What woman (and there were many) cheers that? Even in the brutality of the Northern Ireland conflict, when two british soldiers were unfortunate enough to run into an IRA funeral march, and were beaten to death, Catholic mothers attempted to comfort those ‘boys’ in their final moments, they didn’t cheer!

Bob Bobbington
Bob Bobbington
19 days ago
Reply to  Chris Whybrow

If the Red Cross (no friend of Israel) says 90% of casualties in way are civilians, then even by the spurious figures coming out of Gaza, Israel has achieved a minor miracle keeping civilian casualties at this level. Then consider that civilian casualties in urban warfare are usually much higher than average, and that Hamas deliberately uses civilian human shields and places military targets in schools and hospitals, and it increasingly looks like a major miracle that civilian casualties are not many times higher.

Hamas could always release the hostages, or have you forgotten about them?

You may have forgotten, but many haven’t, that protests against Israel, and indeed celebrations of Hamas’ brutality, began on 7th October, long before Israel actually took any action. The indignation is nothing to do with Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
24 days ago

” The aristos never fight”? 20 percent of all VCs are Old Etonian and Old Harrovian, which is the senior SAS Squadron? ” G” as in Guards squadron.. who founded the SAS, The Commandos?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
23 days ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

Correct ,and during WW1 the highest casualties as a % where amongst the junior officers, though even Generals died. The lake district is full of hotels that were former holiday homes, sold when the heir’s never returned from France etc. This ignorance is what happens when Black Adder and Oh What a Lovely War are viewed as history.

AC Harper
AC Harper
24 days ago

There is, I think, a subtle difference between hitting the leadership of the opponents’ fighting forces and the civilian political leadership.
Kill a political leader and another, possibly more resolute (or deranged) will sometimes step forward. Kill the military leadership or disable their communications and those changes are likely to ‘stick’.
Unfortunately there is even more nuance… sometimes the military leadership and the civilian leadership overlap to some degree.

Brett H
Brett H
23 days ago
Reply to  AC Harper

sometimes the military leadership and the civilian leadership overlap to some degree.
That’s interesting. Any examples?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
23 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas – these are not the normal civil societies. These are where armies, religion and politics form a lethal brew.

jeffrey herman
jeffrey herman
24 days ago

The enabling capability for targeting the leadership is deep rooted intelligence and the supporting technology. This is what distinguishes Israel from Iran and their proxy terrorists. It will be interesting to see with what and how they will strike the Iranians with in a way that they didn’t know what happened out how.

George K
George K
24 days ago

Just in case, this is the definition of “terrorism” ( somehow, firing missiles and boobytrapping become acts of “terrorism” or “rightful response” depending on who’s reporting ). Is it effective though? Unless the endless cycle of violence is the goal.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
23 days ago
Reply to  George K

For Islamist’s, the only end to the endless violence is the capitulation of all to Islam. Their entry as martyrs into paradise to collect their requisite number of virgins is simply another door to pass through, as they send their victims through the doors of hell. Israel is fighting our fight, they don’t win, then we’ll have to fight it sooner or later.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
23 days ago

About time. The only problem in the context of say the West and the Ukraine conflict is this.
Is Putin more sinned against than sinned? Should the US Presidents and Heads of NATO be the ones who are eliminated rather than Putin?
From the moment Russia emerged from the defunct and breaking up Soviet Union, the US/NATO promises (even Der Spiegel admits it now) that NATO would not advance one inch East IF Russia peacefully withdrew from East Germany AND allowed re-unification were simply lies. Even Merkel admitted that the Minsk Peace talks were to buy time to arm and train Ukraine. SO, who is it to be? Putin’s leadership or the West’s? Ukraine disarmed and was promised dual protection on the grounds it was a neutral buffer state between NATO/West and Russia. A role the territory at least, had played for centuries. How many invasions of Russia from the West failed because of the 1000km or so of Ukraine’s scorched earth? Aiming to make it a part of the EU/NATO was stupidity par excellence, AND Putin and Russia repeatedly said so. So, who do you wipe out?
Also, when it comes to Nuclear Powers, maybe that tactic won’t work?
Fortunately for Israel (and the West) it is more clear cut. Their Foes are religious fanatics who often kill more of their own than anyone else when in power. Iran is classic. The Iranians in the main would happily consign the Ayatollah’s to hell or help them on their way to paradise and meeting their maker. Same probably in Lebanon. IF Israel doesn’t win this existential and ongoing war, then once Israel ceases to exist, perhaps even before, the West is the next target. Let Iran’s Ayatollahs obtain Nukes and the chances of a Nuclear war increase as does their desire for martyrdom.
But one thing you can discover very easily, is that wherever there is conflict and massacres around the globe, more often than not it is Islamic fundamentalists murdering Christians, Yardis, Hindus and any other group not willing to bow to Islam and it’s religious certainty that IT AND only it can rule the world and all in it. (The Greens have some similar ideas, but wouldn’t last 5 minutes if they tried bombing young girls in Manchester Concert venues.)

0 01
0 01
23 days ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Oh Poor baby Putin, he has never done anything wrong!

Michael Clarke
Michael Clarke
23 days ago

Israel’s strategy hasn’t changed but it has been refined. They are trying to kill as many people as possible in Gaza and to destroy as much of the Strip as they can. They are doing the same thing in Lebanon but trying out a new tactic as well because it is a larger territory with a bigger population. They must be aware that it is a potentially double edged sword but they clearly believe their opponents can’t match them. Which is true in Gaza and Lebanon but I’m not sure about Iran or indeed if countries like Russia and China are not asking their general staffs to take a look at this new tactic.

Rafi Stern
Rafi Stern
20 days ago
Reply to  Michael Clarke

Israel is not trying to “kill as many people as possible”. If that was the goal then there would be more than 40k dead from a population of 2M. This is precisely the point being made in the article. Far from being indiscriminate as Gutteres and Macron would have it, Israel is trying to kill as many enemy fighters and functionaries as possible, and as few civilians as possible.