Approximately two weeks following the October 7 massacre, Dr. Raphael BenLevi penned an article urging Israel to extend its military campaign to the Islamic Republic's nuclear infrastructure. "In Iran's strategic chess match," he observed at the time, "Hamas serves as a pawn, Hezbollah functions as a rook – while the nuclear program represents the queen piece." Following the Islamic Republic's severe defeats, initially from Israeli forces and subsequently through American bombardments, he analyzes why this development transcends mere threat neutralization.
From his perspective, Israel's decisive confrontation with evil fulfilled the nation's historic calling to merge strength with moral clarity, establishing itself as a beacon championing justice and righteousness through concrete action rather than empty rhetoric. The Israeli Air Force's precision strikes demonstrated unequivocally to the global community that Israel stands as civilization's protective barrier.
BenLevi has maintained close surveillance of Iranian developments across multiple decades through various professional roles. During his tenure with the IDF's Intelligence Research Division, he concentrated extensively on Iranian affairs, and his English-language book "Cultures of Counterproliferation: The Making of American and Israeli Policy on the Iranian Nuclear Program" was published last year.
This work draws from his doctoral research at Bar-Ilan University and his fellowship at Georgetown University in Washington, where he also studied Persian language and cultural studies. Currently, he serves as a senior fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security while directing the Churchill Program for Statecraft and Security at the Argaman Institute.
"From a historical standpoint," he explained, "this military operation places Israel in the most secure and powerful position it has occupied since achieving statehood. The campaign restored Israel's reputation as a formidable military and technological force possessing exceptional capabilities. Between its founding and 1979, Israel faced an existential threat from Egypt's military, which spearheaded Arab opposition to the Jewish state. Following Egypt's withdrawal from active hostilities, Iran's Islamic revolution transformed the republic into the primary force opposing Israel's existence through constructing the 'ring of fire' and developing proxy networks."
"We're witnessing a complete narrative shift – no longer does America play the role of our great rescuer, but rather an American president who recognized this historic opportunity and understood his obligation to join as our partner in this blessing," BenLevi clarified. "The Book of Esther documents how 'many of the peoples of the land became Jews' following the Purim triumph, and similarly, we can anticipate expanding international interest with Israel's cultural contributions to global civilization.
"While this recent offensive hasn't eliminated all threats facing us, it provides a crucial historical insight. Whenever we seized the initiative against our adversaries, opportunities multiplied and we achieved remarkable success. We witnessed this pattern during our independence declaration, Operation Sinai, Operation Focus during the Six-Day War, our strikes on Iraq and Syria's nuclear reactors, and the First Lebanon War's opening that resulted in the PLO's expulsion to Tunisia within two months. Conversely, each instance of hesitation cost us dearly."
Q: You've criticized the security establishment's prevailing doctrine even before October 7. Does the operation in Iran indicate a fundamental conceptual shift?
"Progress is evident, though caution remains necessary. The defensive mindset inherited from the 1990s and Oslo Accords – emphasizing 'containment' while depending on Iron Dome systems, barrier fencing, and fortifications – became institutionally entrenched and continues influencing many decision-makers. During the war's initial year, I encountered such perspectives, including a document proposing a 'new Israeli strategy' from the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an organization housing both colleagues and respected intellectual opponents. Ultimately, they advocated the familiar formula of 'no viable partner exists on the opposing side, requiring our withdrawal and defensive positioning.'
"Some voices in the establishment still characterize October 7 as merely a tactical failure – something adequate tactical alertness could have prevented. They fail to grasp that the fundamental strategic conception, not just alertness levels, demands transformation. Nevertheless, I've rarely encountered such materials more recently, which speaks volumes."
BenLevi contended that the proactive strategy must guide Gaza operations as well. "Israel cannot display any weakness in Gaza now, since hesitation risks undermining the power projection established through Iran's bombardment. This requires unwavering commitment to Hamas's destruction as a governing entity, launching political initiatives to remove Palestinian statehood from international agendas, and pursuing alternative arrangements for local autonomy instead. Israel should reinvigorate efforts enabling Gazans to relocate to destinations including Syria and potentially Iran.
"As Israel consolidates Gaza control, we should expect forcible hostage recoveries, but any Hamas negotiations must be categorically rejected. Successfully completing this campaign would deliver decisive blows to both Islamist variants – Shiite and Sunni – projecting strength across regional regimes, particularly Gulf states and Saudi Arabia seeking Western and Israeli partnerships."
BenLevi advocates for introducing a perspective relatively uncommon among geopolitical specialists – that interstate conflicts derive not exclusively from economic considerations or deterrence calculations. Underneath the veneer of power politics and diplomatic pressure, profound cultural worldviews operate.
Q: Many assume that major powers respond primarily to considerations of strength and economics rather than cultural and ideological motivations.
"In my view, this is a fundamental flaw that characterizes Marxist approaches that reduce human behavior to materialist factors, or liberal theories that minimize cultural distinctions while treating humans as purely rational actors. No 'universal rationality' governs international relations – every culture functions according to its distinct value system and identity. While states certainly react to immediate strategic and economic pressures, the underlying long-term forces remain cultural, ideological, and frequently theological in nature. National policies emerge from foundational beliefs about moral questions of right and wrong, operating alongside military and economic realities. Iranian hostility toward us defies explanation through purely materialist analysis.
"The fundamental differentiation between 'the West' and other global regions depends entirely on cultural and historical foundations. China exemplifies this by viewing Western value penetration as an existential challenge, demonstrating through its brutal 1989 Tiananmen Square suppression exactly how extensively it will act to maintain its authoritarian identity. China's support for Iran's regime is no mere coincidence. Both China and Russia regard Iran as more than a strategic partner – they consider it an ideological partner in resisting American and Western hegemony. Those who reduce everything to statistical data and commercial arrangements fundamentally misunderstand the deeper structures underlying global order."
These observations recall the celebrated intellectual debate from the late 1990s between two preeminent political science scholars – Francis Fukuyama, who interpreted the Soviet Union's collapse as evidence of "history's end" and liberal democracy's universal triumph alongside capitalism, versus Samuel Huntington, who countered through "The Clash of Civilizations" by arguing that major conflicts would persist while transforming their character, with future struggles returning to cultural, religious, and ethnic identity foundations.
Almost 30 years subsequently, amid contemporary global tensions, numerous scholars are revisiting Huntington's arguments and discovering their continued relevance. "Huntington clearly demonstrated greater accuracy than Fukuyama," BenLevi acknowledges, "though reality proves more nuanced than his framework suggested. India exemplifies an ancient, distinct civilization that embraced and absorbed Western principles, consequently gravitating decisively toward Western partnerships after decades of attempting neutrality across competing blocs. Similar patterns emerge throughout the Muslim world – moderate Sunni nations including the UAE and recently Saudi Arabia pursue closer Western relationships while selectively adopting Western values. These evolutionary developments render Huntington's thesis considerably more sophisticated and fluid."
The roots of isolationism
Israeli and American policy formation regarding Iran's nuclear challenge also demonstrates, according to BenLevi's analysis, manifestations of deeper ideological foundations. His scholarly work illustrates how divergent political philosophies generated different responses to Iranian nuclear threats across both nations. "Security policies develop not merely through strategic limitations," he emphasized, "but equally through political cultural contexts and historical visions embraced by governing elites."
The essential distinction separates two fundamental foreign policy approaches – idealistic versus realistic frameworks. "Idealistic thinkers," BenLevi elaborated, "conceptualize the international arena as a cooperative environment where armed conflict represents an aberration and peaceful coexistence constitutes the standard operating procedure. They maintain absolute confidence that every international actor functions according to identical logic – pursuing economic prosperity and material advancement – believing that presenting appropriate diplomatic proposals will inevitably generate reciprocal cooperation.
However, when confronting regimes such as Iran or Hamas, which operate through entirely different moral frameworks and frequently pursue theological-revolutionary objectives incompatible with compromise, this worldview can manifest as perilously delusional thinking. Realists proceed from alternative foundational premises – they readily acknowledge hierarchical relationships between different cultures, recognizing that power competitions form integral components of human and political existence, that peaceful intervals represent historical anomalies, and that strength – whether military, economic, or technological – are essential to survival."
Using this analytical framework, he categorizes various leaders accordingly. "Within American leadership," he specifies, "Carter, Clinton, and Obama exemplify the idealistic paradigm, while Reagan and Bush embody realistic approaches. Regarding Israeli politics, Shimon Peres gravitated toward pronounced idealism, whereas Netanyahu distinctly represents realistic thinking. Nevertheless, given the region's extraordinary complexity, Middle Eastern realities prevent Israeli leaders from maintaining purely idealistic perspectives comparable to Carter's approach.
"Remarkably, a distinctive pattern emerged here – numerous military officers who demonstrated fierce combat effectiveness during their security service transformed into idealists following their transition to political leadership. Throughout the Oslo period, many became convinced that peace was literally around the corner, requiring only proper diplomatic frameworks to resolve all conflicts. This assessment proved catastrophically misguided. My evaluation suggests this stems from psychological difficulty to accept that employing force against evil represents genuinely moral action. Consequently, when these former combatants assume leadership responsibilities, they abandon realistic perspectives through apparent attempts to compensate for their use of violence."
The dynamics in America also betray simplistic categorization. "I encountered senior officials from Obama administration service who participated in the negotiations with Iran. They reported believing that John Kerry, serving as secretary of state, demonstrated excessive enthusiasm for reaching an agreements while accepting compromises they considered extensive. This revelation surprised me considerably."
Q: In Israel it's commonly said that Americans are naive in their dealings with the Middle East. Do you endorse this assessment?
"First of all, America contains individuals who comprehend Middle Eastern dynamics very well. Numerous officers with Iraq and Afghanistan combat experience understand precisely their adversaries' nature and harbor no illusions. However, some cultural elements lead to blindness. The majority of Americans live in homogeneous, English-speaking environments, remaining isolated from exposure to other cultures and languages. Unlike typical Israelis or most Europeans, countless Americans never experience significant cross-cultural interaction, never learned another language and never travelled outside of America.
"This gap manifests itself within the diplomatic and political leadership. Consider Vice President JD Vance's background – he has not lived abroad aside for several months of service as military correspondent in Iraq, yet currently represents the voice of restraint toward the action against Iran. Another pattern is seen throughout lower administrative levels – American professional diplomats are incentivized to study Arabic as the secure pathway toward embassy positions across the Arab world. They are trained at universities' Middle Eastern studies departments, some receiving Qatari funding while promoting Edward Said's 'Orientalism' worldview that denies regional populations agency over their futures while blaming all problems on imperialistic influences.
"These factors collectively impair American understanding of distinct ideological adversaries – who hate Americans because of who they are - not their specific actions. Saddam Hussein operated as a brutal dictator but was not an ideological Islamist. The Iranian regime, on the other hand, despises America not for particular policies but for the fundamental values it represents. Many American diplomats have difficulty accepting this, believing that deep down, the regime officials are 'just like us' and seek a higher material quality of life. This is a persistent error rooted in cultural blindness. Democratic leaders including Obama embrace this misconception, though Republican figures like George Bush share it substantially."
Contemporary American concern regarding President Trump's recent actions in Iran reflects profound cultural and historical influences beyond immediate policy concerns. "First of all, the failure of Iraq constitutes a formative event for this generation of policy-makers. However, this perspective rests upon America's deeply embedded isolationist heritage, predating Tucker Carlson. George Washington's presidential farewell address explicitly cautioned against foreign entanglements. The Monroe Doctrine of the 1820s formally declared American non-interference in European and Asian affairs while demanding reciprocal non-intervention throughout the American hemisphere. Following World War I, Americans retreated from global engagement for an extended period. Only through the necessity after World War II did America transform into a superpower maintaining worldwide military presence. Nevertheless, isolationist sentiment remains integral to American political culture."
BenLevi differentiates between contemporary Republican isolationist approaches. "Extreme isolationists may even see defending Taiwan as contrary to American interests, naturally opposing intervention supporting Israel. However, most embrace a more moderate position, prioritizing China as the paramount challenge while relegating other concerns to secondary status. Most in this camp are not anti-Israel but rather expect allies around the world to bear the burden of their security needs, be it Israel, Gulf states, or NATO allies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Elbridge Colby represents prominent 'China first' advocacy. It seems that while not opposing Israeli strikes against Iran, he believes American involvement must be avoided to prevent distraction from higher priority theaters of conflict.
"I believe that Trump joined the offensive not due to an inability on Israel's part, but because he saw the operation's extraordinary success and did not want to remain on the sidelines in a supporting role but instead preferred to actively participation and share in the credit. This does not contradict his electoral commitments, as he has clearly taken the position that he would prevent a nuclear Iran by force if necessary. Having given ample opportunity for diplomacy, he had justified moving to military tools. Additionally, by striking Iran he also sent a clear message to China, demonstrating his willingness to take action when required, which strengthened deterrence against any Chinese moves on Taiwan."
The new man
Raphael BenLevi (41) resides in central Israel with wife, Lital, and four children. His grew up in an Orthodox Jewish household in Toronto, arriving in Israel in September 2001 for a study-volunteer program – one week before 9/11 and amid the Second Intifada in Israel. "This experience clarified that Jewish history is being written here in Israel, while living in the diaspora relegates Jews to the sidelines. Upon internalizing this understanding, I determined to become an active participant by immigrating," he explained.
Following two years of university study in Canada, BenLevi immigrated to Israel, continuing his studies at the Technion, and entering the IDF upon completion of his bachelor's degree. He served as an officer in the Israeli Air Force responsible for F-16 and F-15 jet engine maintenance policy. Finding himself pulled to the realms of strategy, he pursued an MA in in government, diplomacy, and strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (currently Reichman University) while transferring to the IDF's Intelligence Research Division. This professional evolution coincided with encountering Rabbi Uri Cherki's teachings and personality. "He provided primarily intellectual permission to think creatively. Beyond instruction, he encourages his student toward independence and action. Through him I internalized that the Torah contains messages with universal relevance, but that Israel must also be strong geopolitically to have its ideas taken seriously."
BenLevi directs the Churchill Program at Argaman Institute, which aims to train policy professionals grounded in moral realism, who can integrate power with ethics, culture with strategy, and Jewish identity with foreign policy. According to him, the program is designed to fill the void left by the disappearance of the realist approach from academia.
"Our goal is to cultivate leaders who are committed to a national vision while recognizing the harshness of the international arena, and who understand that moral strength is not a paradox—that it is, in fact, the answer to a hollow moralism that ends up abandoning the weak to tyranny."
Q: What, in your view, is the message or contribution of the State of Israel in the context of the global cultural clash taking place today?
"I see the root of today's global struggle as a return to an ancient conflict between idolatry, which gave rise to totalitarian political models, and the Biblical message of human freedom. The Bible challenges political systems in which flesh-and-blood kings make themselves into gods, and its foundational assumptions are what shaped the West. The idea that man is created in the image of God provides the moral basis for freedom and for the democratic system, in which citizens participate in shaping the government, as well as for a world order built on nation-states, which allow peoples to express their unique cultures."
Q: Is Israel part of the West?
"Yes and no. On the one hand, the West drew from us Biblical concepts, but it also incorporates some pagan values of Rome and Greece. So, at our core, we are a civilization that predates the West and stands apart from it.
"In contrast to the West," BenLevi continues, "stands the axis of dictatorships—Iran, China, and North Korea—alongside the radical vision of leftist progressivism, both of which demand blind submission to an elite that claims to possess a single, absolute truth, and seek to subjugate the individual to a messianic, power-driven ideology. This has produced a universalist project that champions the 'here and now'—from the Chinese version of Leninism, through Khomeinist theology that turned Shi'ite tradition on its head by making religious scholars not passive waiters for the return of the 'Hidden Imam' but architects of an active messianic regime, to the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Nazis in Germany, and the French Revolution during the Reign of Terror.
"What unites them all," he says, "is a utopian belief that the old world must be destroyed to create a perfect society and a 'new man'. And at the top of each stands a domineering figure—the Duce, the Führer, the Rahbar (the Supreme Leader in Persian)—who denies individual freedom and assumes a godlike status, like the god-kings of the ancient world."
Q: By the way, you speak of China as aspiring to realize Marxism "here and now." Is that truly a living ideology, or just an empty slogan?
"Just like the West is blind to Iran and radical Islam, many also miss the big picture with China: in the end, communism is its religion. True, they no longer implement the doctrine exactly as they did in the 1950s and '60s, but in party congresses, a giant portrait of Karl Marx still hangs on the wall. He is the guiding star by which they navigate.
"China understood that it had to open its economy and create the appearance of a free market, but it has not abandoned the Leninist model, where the Party is the driving force behind a global revolution. The major corporations there are neither free nor private. This is a totalitarian regime equipped with 21st-century technologies."
A purge campaign
Even within the global Left, says BenLevi, one can identify a tendency to centralization and totalitarian power, in the attempt to shape a world governed by supranational institutions like the UN and the European Union, and by a discourse in which any challenge to prevailing beliefs is immediately denounced as heresy.
"It's the same model: one absolute truth, a small group of enlightened elites who believe they possess it, and anyone who disagrees is seen as an obstacle. This isn't politics of compromise — it's a campaign of purification and a declaration of war against the forces of 'reaction,' driven by a longing for redemption through the erasure of the present.
This isn't progress — it's radical utopianism. And it doesn't matter whether the flag is waved by the representative of the 'Hidden Imam' or by the prophets of political correctness."
Q: But Judaism also believes in active messianism and a call for redemption.
"True, but it is based on an entirely different principle: only God is sovereign — neither man, nor king, nor state holds ultimate authority. Unlike totalitarian regimes that demand blind submission to an elite, the Jewish tradition calls for humility and a recognition that human understanding of truth is always partial, and that man must act within a moral framework that is subject to a power greater than himself.
This is the root of the profound conflict with the Iranian regime and others like it — not only over nuclear weapons, but over the relationship between God and man, and the very concept of freedom.
This idea, in my view, is encapsulated in the concept of the Temple in our tradition. The Temple symbolizes the possibility of encountering God not just as an abstract idea, but as a living experience, here in this world — not through submission or subjugation, but through joy.
The Temple embodies the constant and fruitful tension in the dialogue between man and God, between a lofty ideal of perfection and an imperfect, concrete reality, and between universality and nationality. It is a model in which the people of Israel convey a message to all humanity — one that is not erased or crushed, but uplifted: 'For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.'" (Isiah, 56:7).
Q: Some might say that talk about the Temple evokes fears of establishing a theocratic regime in Israel, like in Iran.
"I'm not necessarily talking about building the Temple tomorrow morning. The point is the idea: the Torah is not opposed to human flourishing and freedom—rather it is their foundation. God is not humanity's enemy, but rather the guarantor that human beings will not become slaves to one another.
We have no vision of a theocracy ruled by clerics, but rather of freedom that stems from a covenant with the Creator, who, in Jewish belief, has limited Himself to make room for human free will and dialogue. This is a moral foundation not aimed at establishing a halachic state, but a Jewish state that integrates tradition, science, progress, and economic prosperity, all rooted in a deep identity.
"In my view, this is also a message for the Muslim world, which, out of fear of modernity, has frozen into anti-modern conservatism—and also for parts of the West, which, in the name of progress, seek to abandon the anchors of human identity like family, nation, and tradition.
The Jewish message is: both — strength and morality. That is our message, and it depends first and foremost on defeating the evil of Khomeinism."
