The Strategic Dilemma of 'Imperial Israel': Dominance Without Durable Security

 The Strategic Dilemma of 'Imperial Israel': Dominance Without Durable Security

Roger Cohen’s conceptualization of an “Imperial Israel”—a nation whose defense forces operate almost at will across the Middle East—captures the prevailing reality of overwhelming military superiority two years after the devastating Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. This is not empire in the classical sense of territorial conquest, but rather an unparalleled operational dominance, capable of projecting lethal force from Beirut to Yemen, Gaza to Iran. As evidenced by the targeted assassination of a senior Hezbollah official on the outskirts of Beirut, and the routine, unreported drone strikes that turn enemy vehicles into “a ball of fire,” Israel currently maintains total tactical and aerial control over its adversaries. The central analytical question posed by this reality is whether this overwhelming military capability can be successfully converted into a durable state of strategic security, or if the current approach—defined by almost daily strikes—is strategically self-defeating, generating instability rather than ensuring lasting peace.

The manifestations of this imperial reach are clear and undeniable. The operational map of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) now spans a vast, non-contiguous area, extending far beyond Israel’s borders and immediate conflict zones. Hezbollah, a major rival, finds its high-ranking military leadership vulnerable to remote execution, a powerful demonstration of the intelligence and air superiority Israel possesses. Furthermore, as Cohen witnesses, strikes against lower-profile targets have become so common that they are no longer newsworthy—a grim normalization of cross-border warfare executed with precision technology. This ability to strike enemies anywhere—from the airspaces of Syria and Lebanon to the supply routes allegedly running through Yemen or the operational planning cells in Qatar—is what Abdulkhaleq Abdulla describes as the hallmark of an “imperial Israel.” It signifies a fundamental shift where traditional notions of state sovereignty are circumvented by a relentless, regional pursuit of security through pre-emptive and punitive force.

However, the efficacy of military dominance must be critically assessed against the yardstick of strategic gain. Tactically, Israel achieves daily victories: enemy leaders are decapitated, weapons caches are destroyed, and networks are disrupted. These actions provide immediate, measurable security improvements and send powerful, deterrent messages. The military machine is functioning as designed, ensuring an unparalleled advantage in conventional and asymmetric conflicts. Yet, the strategic costs associated with this unconstrained projection of power are profound and potentially destabilizing. The reliance on strikes and assassinations addresses the symptom—the existence of militant groups—but fails to engage with the underlying political, ideological, and socio-economic roots of the conflict.

The core paradox is that the very actions taken to ensure security often end up fueling the regional instability they aim to contain. The assassination of a senior Hezbollah leader may disrupt operations for a time, but it simultaneously transforms the target into a martyr, galvanizing recruitment and justifying revenge among the remaining ranks. The sight of distraught young men gathering charred remains, as witnessed in Lebanon, breeds deep-seated grievance and resentment that military action alone can never extinguish. This dynamic suggests that Israel’s approach is stuck in a loop of perpetual motion: tactical success necessitates an immediate military response, but each response increases the political entropy in the region, demanding yet more forceful interventions down the line.

Furthermore, the "imperial" projection of power fundamentally shapes the geopolitical responses of regional state actors. While some moderate Arab states have signed normalization agreements with Israel, the country’s unrestrained use of force forces them to constantly calibrate their own security positions. The presence of an overwhelmingly powerful, assertive, and politically unilateral neighbor can make regional partnerships tenuous and politically fraught. The military superiority, therefore, does not lead to strategic consolidation; instead, it creates a deeply unsettled regional environment where non-state actors gain ideological leverage by positioning themselves as the only entities truly resisting the perceived foreign dominance.

In conclusion, Roger Cohen's use of the term "Imperial Israel" accurately defines the current geopolitical reality of absolute military dominance and unrestrained operational reach. This dominance delivers consistent tactical victories by disrupting enemy networks and imposing high costs on adversaries. However, the fundamental flaw in the approach is the belief that such dominance can single-handedly purchase strategic security. Security, in the Middle East, is a project built on political compromise, regional engagement, and the addressing of core grievances. By relying almost exclusively on force projection—the “almost daily strikes”—Israel risks prioritizing short-term tactical control over long-term strategic stability, thus ensuring the perpetual continuation of the conflict it seeks to win.