A Struggle to Heal the Wounds: The Israeli Security Doctrine 2025–2026

The Israeli think tank INSS has published an article outlining the 2025–2026 Israeli security doctrine. Within this document, confrontation with Iran stands out as a fundamental issue and a major threat, with the name of Iran appearing nearly 60 times. Prominent elements in the document include: Iran’s nuclear program, the future of the Axis of Resistance, the nature of cooperation with the United States on Iran-related matters, and potential nuclear agreements. Notably, Iran’s relationships with Russia and the Resistance Axis are highlighted as strategic points. The doctrine presents various scenarios, followed by actionable strategies.

Battlefronts
In the introduction of the doctrine document, Israel defines its surrounding adversaries and adopts an aggressive, security-driven approach toward regional states. Iran and Syria emerge as primary concerns. Regarding Iran, three potential scenarios are outlined:

1. A New Iran–U.S. Nuclear Deal: Tel Aviv should not oppose the agreement outright but rather seek a role in shaping it to ensure Tehran is prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.

2. Iran Achieves Nuclear Capability: Immediate military action is required, preferably in coordination with the United States.

3. A Prolonged Stalemate: Continuous economic pressure and covert operations should be applied to weaken Iran steadily.

One noteworthy feature in this document is the grouping of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea under the acronym “CRINGE”, portraying them as a united front opposing the liberal-democratic world order. According to Israeli analysis, despite deep ideological differences and conflicting interests, these states are cooperating to challenge Western hegemony. The doctrine paints a dire global picture—dominated by authoritarianism, communism, and rising Islamic sentiment in liberal societies—while warning of rising extremist factions reshaping political landscapes. Ultimately, Iran is described as the leader of the Axis of Resistance, an integrated coalition that seeks Israel’s destruction.

A Shifting Strategic Environment
Over a year into a multi-front war, Israel claims it has increased its strategic flexibility and gained greater maneuvering space in the short term. Before assessing Israel’s core national security challenges, the doctrine reviews broader changes in its strategic outlook.

1. Undermining Iran’s Security Doctrine
From Israel’s viewpoint, Iran’s military capabilities are insufficient to deter a direct attack, and even reaching nuclear threshold status has not produced the expected deterrence. Israelis believe Iran’s resistance strategy has failed to contain Israel’s actions, and the resistance network is collapsing. The fall of Assad, they argue, has further weakened Iran’s regional strategy, eliminating Syria’s role. In this altered landscape, Iran will struggle to restore Hezbollah’s prior threat level against Tel Aviv.
Opportunity: Iran is perceived as being at an unprecedented point of weakness, offering Israel expanded freedom of action. This opens opportunities to push for a tougher nuclear deal, reduce Iran’s regional influence, and even pursue military options to halt its nuclear program.
Threat: If Iran concludes that nuclear threshold status is insufficient for deterrence, it may accelerate its nuclear weapon development, thereby altering the regional balance of power in its favor.

2. Shifting Regional Power Dynamics

Opportunity: Advancing the Abraham Accords can curtail Iranian influence. Potential diplomatic moves include: securing Israel’s northern border by leveraging Hezbollah’s weakness, forming a non-aggression pact with a new Syrian government (which may also ease tensions with Turkey), and finalizing normalization with Saudi Arabia. Close coordination with the United States would aid in realizing these goals.

Threat: Assad’s fall could produce unpredictable consequences, including jeopardizing Israel’s peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt. The emergence of a radical Sunni axis—led by a resurgent Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and beyond—could present a formidable new threat, potentially as dangerous as the former “Ring of Fire” led by Iran.

Iran’s Nuclear Threat: Three Strategic Scenarios

1. If an Agreement Is Reached:
Tel Aviv should actively influence any potential nuclear deal. The agreement must ensure the following:

A) Immediate Halt to Nuclear Progress
B) Comprehensive Threat Mitigation:

• Fissile Material: Caps on uranium enrichment levels and stockpile quantities; dismantling of advanced centrifuges installed after 2018; intrusive and comprehensive inspections.
• Delivery Systems: Restrictions on ballistic missile range and technology; limits on missile stockpiles; nonproliferation enforcement.
• Weaponization: Oversight of nuclear research institutions and bans on any weapons-related nuclear activity.
  

These steps are deemed essential for safeguarding Israel’s security and preventing Iran’s military nuclear capability.

2. If No Agreement Is Achieved:
Israel must ensure stringent enforcement of sanctions and maintain close intelligence and diplomatic ties with the United States. Enriching uranium to 90 percent should be declared a red line that justifies military action—with or without U.S. support. Since Iran aims to outlast the Trump presidency and anticipates policy shifts under a new administration (especially a rollback of maximum pressure), this period should be used to weaken Iran via covert operations, while avoiding visible foreign fingerprints. These actions are considered vital to blocking Iran’s nuclear advancement and preserving Israeli security.

3. If Iran Builds a Nuclear Weapon:
This scenario involves Iran withdrawing from the NPT, enriching uranium to 90 percent, and conducting nuclear weapon tests. Israel believes that Iran’s nuclear facilities must be destroyed immediately in response. The U.S. should be urged to issue a decisive warning to Iran before any military action. To prevent a regional arms race and nuclear terrorism, Israel must act decisively. While coordination with the U.S. is essential, Israel’s independent military capabilities must be fully developed to ensure mission success.

New U.S–Israel Relations: Opportunities and Challenges

• Opportunities: A second Trump term could strengthen U.S.–Israel relations through appointments of pro-Israel officials. This would provide Israel with greater regional autonomy, bolster deterrence against Iran, and establish a credible military threat to Tehran’s ambitions.
• Challenges: Rising criticism within the Democratic Party—especially due to Israel’s internal policies—could erode bipartisan U.S. support. Israel must pursue a defense agreement as part of a broader regional strategy to counter isolation efforts. Such an agreement would also enhance deterrence against Iran’s nuclear threat and maintain U.S. military and technological support. Shaping future Memoranda of Understanding (MoU) with Washington to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge is crucial.

Economic and Diplomatic Strategies

To counter Iran’s influence and boost economic ties, Israel must strategically expand its relations with Europe. This may require taking a firmer stance on Russia, while preserving key diplomatic channels. Such a strategy could undermine the Iran–Russia axis and curtail Tehran’s regional clout.

The Iran–Israel War Doctrine

According to Israel’s security doctrine, the October 7th attack was the moment when Tel Aviv finally awakened to the nature of the war Iran has been waging against it. The more Israel focused on Iran’s nuclear threat, the less it recognized that Iran’s strategy also hinges—perhaps even more—on its Axis of Resistance as a weapon against Zionism. Although Tehran’s “proxy war” strategy had long been discussed in Israeli defense circles, Tel Aviv failed to develop a suitable strategic or operational response.
Thus, the October 7th war caused a dual disruption to Israel’s long-standing strategic thinking. The war represents a collision between two visions: one meticulously prepared by Iran’s axis, and the other rooted in Israel’s outdated military conceptions shaped by its belief in “wars with clear endings.” This outdated doctrine failed to address new types of threats. The fact that Israel was caught off guard, despite having prior intelligence, underscores its misjudgment of enemy strategies. The doctrine concludes that the war’s gains and failures must be analyzed through the tension between counterterrorism approaches and military-war theory—two frameworks that are not interchangeable.