Introduction:

This report examines Prime Minister Netanyahu’s conflict strategy, drawing parallels to the Begin Doctrine, which advocates for preemptive action and independent defence to counter regional threats.The Begin Doctrine declares any regional enemy that intends to destroy the State of Israel cannot be permitted to obtain weapons of mass destruction, principally, nuclear weapons.

The doctrine was initially formulated under Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the late 1970s and early 1980s, beginning with the strike on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq. When Prime Minister Begin learned that the reactor had the potential to produce plutonium for atomic bombs, he recognized it as a significant threat to Israel. The possibility of Saddam Hussein developing a nuclear weapon was perceived as a direct danger to Israel, heightening fears of a potential nuclear attack. The doctrine was further reinforced in 2007 when Israel conducted a preemptive strike on Syria, which had begun developing a nuclear reactor with assistance from North Korea. This approach remains central to Israel’s strategy, particularly concerning Iran’s nuclear program, which came to public attention in 2002. On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched an attack on Israel, resulting in numerous casualties and the capture of several hostages, the deadliest in its history. Since this attack, the Israeli Prime Minister has adopted a decisively preemptive stance, with a focus on anticipating threats and taking measures to prevent future attacks. These actions suggest that Netanyahu may be formulating his own doctrine, which aligns with the principles of the earlier Begin Doctrine in its emphasis on preemptive strikes.

Key Actors: Israel, Menachem Begin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)

Major geopolitical and geostrategic Implications:

The major geopolitical and geostrategic implications include the potential escalation of the conflict into a broader regional war, particularly involving Iran, which could disrupt global energy markets and drive up crude oil prices. Israel’s preemptive strategy strengthens its security posture but risks further isolating it internationally due to widespread condemnation of civilian casualties. The destruction in Gaza deepens the humanitarian crisis, undermining prospects for long-term stability and increasing tensions with neighboring states. The conflict’s regional spillover into Lebanon and the West Bank highlights the vulnerability of fragile areas, emphasizing the need for coordinated international mediation. Additionally, the U.S.’s evolving rhetoric reflects the conflict’s influence on its foreign policy and domestic political landscape, especially with upcoming elections.

Current Situation:

The conflict has heavily escalated, with Israel conducting extensive ground offensives across Gaza and eliminating most of Hamas’ leadership, though Khaled Mashal remains the only confirmed surviving leader. Violence has also spread to the West Bank and southern Lebanon, with Hezbollah’s involvement prompting Israeli operations in Lebanon. Despite Israel’s upper hand militarily, Hamas continues to resist using guerrilla tactics, while the humanitarian crisis in Gaza has reached catastrophic levels

Economic Impact:

The Gaza conflict initially drove up crude oil prices, spurring global inflation, though prices have since stabilised. However, any escalation of the conflict to include Iran could lead to another surge in oil prices. Despite West Asia’s critical role in global energy markets, the impact on oil and gas prices has remained minimal thus far.

In Israel, the war has slowed economic growth and increased the fiscal deficit. Nevertheless, the Israeli economy remains resilient due to substantial foreign exchange reserves. Conversely, Gaza’s economy faces severe contraction, with predictions of up to an 80% decline. Unemployment and displacement rates are soaring, leaving Gaza’s economy in a state of collapse.

Perceived Future Outlook:

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas is expected to continue, as Prime Minister Netanyahu remains focused on preemptively eliminating perceived threats, while Hamas maintains its organizational structure and capacity for resistance. The situation poses a risk of regional escalation, particularly with Iran’s potential involvement, which could impact crude oil prices and global inflation. This conflict also provides Netanyahu an opportunity to solidify a doctrine of preemptive action, reinforcing Israel’s strategic autonomy in addressing security challenges.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, Netanyahu’s policy actions in the current conflict reflect key aspects of the Begin Doctrine, particularly in his emphasis on preemptive strikes and independent self-defence to neutralise perceived existential threats. Despite differences in execution, both leaders share a foundational belief in Israel’s right to act unilaterally to ensure national security, regardless of international opposition. This continuity in doctrine underscores Israel’s long-standing approach to regional threats, with Netanyahu potentially shaping a doctrine of his own rooted in similar principles.