Connect with us

Features

How an addiction to the Iron Dome doctrine has eroded Israel’s deterrence – analysis

Published

on

Iron Dome anti rockets system seen in the city of Haifa, Israel, August 30, 2013(photo credit: GILI YAARI/FLASH90)

It was once believed that the Iron Dome would buy Israel the time to make rational decisions rather than be plunged into wars in haste.

Advertisements

Over the past decade, Israel’s air defense, particularly the Iron Dome, provided Israel with the time and protection to not have to rush into wars in Gaza.

Advertisements

That all changed on October 7, 2023, when Hamas massacred more than 1,000 people using old-style tactics of a human wave attack that easily crumbled Israel’s hi-tech defenses—a decade of relying on technology and reducing ground forces led to an extreme neglect of basic security doctrines.

Since then, Israel has continued to rely on air defenses to protect itself against rocket fire from Gaza, Hezbollah, and other Iranian-backed proxies in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq. In each case, the decision to rely on a strategy rooted in air defense has reduced Israel’s deterrence of its enemies. For instance, in the north, Israel preferred to evacuate people from the border rather than fight Hezbollah.

Israel’s historic leadership, going back to the days of David Ben-Gurion, understood that the country faced serious enemies and that the best way to defend against them was to go on the offense and defeat them quickly. Israel understood that letting its enemies ring it with advanced weapon systems would imperil the Jewish state. This is why Israel always sought to root its doctrine in acquiring new advanced game-changing weapons and denying its enemies similar weapons.

When necessary, Israel was prepared to make sacrifices and send soldiers on daring missions to do everything possible to protect the state.

This all changed in the last decade and a half as Israel’s strategy changed. The country shifted from being ready for daring, rapid wars to defeat enemies to becoming a society surrounded by walls. It allowed enemies like Hezbollah and Hamas to become exponentially more powerful, and Israeli security experts told the public this was fine because Israel was also advancing in its military abilities. Israelis were told that precision munitions could neutralize threats.

Iran was able to advance closer to Israel’s borders since 2015, moving move forces into Syria and growing militias in Iraq and Yemen. As the militias acquired new missiles and drones, Israel relied on the same air defenses and doctrine. Even as Israel told itself it had a new “Momentum” doctrine in the army, it didn’t really seem to believe it. This was because it trained for multi-front wars, but when it came down to it, it didn’t actually want to engage in wars that required the kind of rapid maneuver and short-term sacrifice required.

After October 7, Israel has continued to rely on a doctrine rooted in air defenses as a strategy. It has evacuated the north and south and believes air defenses continue to buy it time. The concept of Iron Dome buying Israel time to decide worked when Israel’s enemies couldn’t penetrate the air defenses and when the Israeli public wasn’t affected much by the war.

However, even in those previous conflicts, such as clashes in Gaza in 2018 and 2021, the conflicts were short. Living under endless rocket fire and evacuating the borders is not a doctrine for success. Israel’s enemies today are not deterred. They believe they have caught Israel in a trap in which Israel continues to rely on precision strikes and proportional attacks.

Israel’s leaders of old understood this would be a recipe for disaster. Israel can’t meet its enemies man-for-man. Israel is a small state, and it can’t afford to end up like Lebanon or Iraq. It is a modern state that relies on trade and wants to be part of the First World. Endless wars against Hamas, Hezbollah, and a half dozen other Iranian proxies are not a recipe for Israel’s historic successes.

It was once believed that the Iron Dome would buy Israel the time to make rational decisions rather than be plunged into wars in haste. Today, it is clear that relying on this as a strategy has led to endless caution and a fear of fighting large wars to deter enemies. Instead, the preference is to continue letting groups like Hezbollah dictate the tempo of the war. Hezbollah says that it will stop its attacks when Israel ends the war in Gaza.

In essence, this means every time Israel clashes with Hamas, Hezbollah has carved out a “right” to rain down rockets, drones, and missiles on northern Israel. The most destructive aspects of the October 7 war are now being felt on multiple fronts. Hezbollah’s ability to carve out a security zone inside Israel and fight a war between the wars inside Israel is a historic disaster for Israel.

What is the “new norm” in the Middle East?

Recently, Hezbollah killed two Israelis in the Golan. Its drones continue to wreak havoc. There was a time when the murder of one Israeli by Hezbollah was a big deal. A year ago, when an IED was planted by a man near Metulla who had come into Israel from Lebanon, it was seen as a big deal.

Today, 6,000 rockets and drones fired by Hezbollah are seen as the new norm. The killing of Israelis in the north is becoming a new norm. This is all due to the fact that strategists put all their faith in air defenses as a strategy unto themselves.

This is a reminder of previous historic marches of folly and failures, such as the Maginot line. Countries that rely solely on defenses are doomed to eventually end up with enemies who grow too strong and learn how to pierce the defenses. Israel’s historic leaders understood this.

Israel will need to rethink its reliance on air defenses as a strategy. The defenses went from buying time to eroding Israel’s deterrence and preventing Israel from making the tough decisions necessary to secure the country.

Advertisements

Features

Bruno Fernandes: Mikel Arteta credits ‘smart’ Man Utd captain for free-kick as Gary Neville says wall ‘too far back’

Published

on

The Arsenal wall was measured 11.2 yards away from the ball instead of the regulation 10 at the free-kick which Bruno Fernandes scored from

Mikel Arteta says Bruno Fernandes was “smarter” than referee Anthony Taylor over his free-kick that gave Manchester United the lead against Arsenal in 1-1 draw on Sunday; referee moved defensive wall 11.2 yards back; Gary Neville criticised Arsenal over incident

Advertisements

Mikel Arteta refused to criticise Anthony Taylor for sending Arsenal’s defensive wall too far back for Bruno Fernandes’ free-kick in their 1-1 draw but said the Manchester United captain had been “smarter” than the referee in taking advantage to net his fine strike.

Advertisements

Broadcast technology found Taylor marched the Arsenal defensive line 11.2 yards back, further than the minimum 10 yards required in the Laws of the Game, before Fernandes curled a dead ball inside the near post shortly before half-time.

“At the end of the day the referee is pushing them back too far, which is a mistake, but ordinarily you would sense you’re too far away and creep forward,” said Gary Neville on the Gary Neville Podcast.

“They didn’t do that and it ends up that Bruno Fernandes has the ability to play it over the wall.”

The United captain’s technique was superb but, like Neville, the Super Sunday pundits questioned whether his goal would have been possible had Arsenal’s five-player wall been closer.

Arteta refused to be drawn over the incident, only to congratulate Fernandes for making the most of the advantage he had been given.
“He’s been smart and he took advantage, that is football,” he told Sky Sports. “He’s been smarter than the ref. That’s OK, they allowed him to do it.”

Player of the match Declan Rice, who netted Arsenal’s equaliser after half-time, took the blame for the goal on himself and the other members of the Gunners wall, though he also felt it had been pushed too far back.

“It felt like a couple of us jumped and some of us didn’t, but I’ve not seen it back,” he told Sky Sports. “It felt like the ball flew over us at quite a low height so, from the wall’s perspective, we could have done a lot better.
“The wall did feel far back. Even on our free-kick, when Martin [Odegaard] took it, they felt far back as well, more than usual. But the referee makes that decision.”

After half-time, another free-kick from Martin Odegaard was being lined up when Taylor again appeared to exceed 10 yards when marking out where Man Utd’s defensive wall could stand.

As Neville had suggested Arsenal should do, Noussair Mazraoui questioned Taylor over the distance, while the wall itself crept forward before Odegaard’s strike – and did its job when his effort rebounded away to safety.

Manchester United head coach Ruben Amorim told Sky Sports he had noticed the issues with both free-kicks but had no intention of helping Arsenal out ahead of Fernandes’ opener.

He said: “It was clear, both free-kicks. So when it’s your free kick, you don’t say anything. When it’s the opponent, you try to push because it’s a big difference.

“It was fair, one for us, one for them. We had Bruno and he solved the problem.”

Man Utd midfielder Christian Eriksen, who has scored eight Premier League free-kicks, explained after the game the sizeable difference even 1.2 yards extra would make for a dead-ball specialist.

“It makes a very big difference,” he told Sky Sports. “When the ball is over the wall you don’t need to hit it as high – going down to statistics and how far they are back and how many metres and how they jump. So it’s easier and it gives Bruno a bit more space to put it over the wall.

“It was very good. It helped that the wall was about 15 metres away, so it was perfect for him to put it over.

“I saw it early [that the wall was a fair way back]. Even before the kick you could see how far back they were, and it was the same when they had it in the second half – obviously we were a bit angry with the ref [at that point] for putting us so far back after we saw that Bruno scored.

“But I think it was just beneficial to us.”

Advertisements
Continue Reading

Features

Sule Lamido: Statesman, bridge builder

Published

on

Former Governor of Jigawa State, Alhaji Sule Lamido

Alhaji Sule Lamido was born August 30, 1948. He is a native of Bamaina village, Jigawa State, and is known for his wide-level exposure in leadership. He attended Birnin Kudu school, for his primary education in 1955 and proceeded for his secondary education at the prestigious Barewa College, Zaria, Kaduna State.

Advertisements

Lamido embarked on a course in Railway engineering at the Permanent way training school, Zaria, Kaduna where he gained knowledge on the rail transport operations. Upon graduation from the Permanent Way Training School, Lamido started his career as a Quality Control officer at the Nigeria Tobacco Company in Zaria. He also worked in Bamaina Holding Company, amongst other companies in the country.

Advertisements

He also worked in Bamaina Holding Company, amongst other companies in the country. In 1992, Lamido ventured into politics, first in the second republic as a member of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) where he was an active member. Lamido was also active in the third republic, as a member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), and played a key role as the National Secretary in the party. The seasoned politician was also a delegate of the 1995 National Constitutional Conference in Abuja the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

During the military regime of the late Gen Sani Abacha, Lamido was a member of the G-34 political movement which was a notable and powerful opposition group that shaped Nigeria’s fourth republic. After several years of the Military junta in Nigeria, Sule Lamido returned back to active politics in the fourth republic under the platform of the People’s Democratic Party.

He was appointed the Foreign Affairs Minister in the first four years of President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2003) at a time Nigeria had to reposition and redeem its image in the international community. As Foreign Minister he travelled with Former President Obasanjo across the globe, restoring broken relationships with the western bloc nations and opening new frontiers with countries like Japan, Russia, Brazil, China and Australia.

Other roles he played as foreign minister was representing Nigeria in the United Nations, G77 bloc of nations, Commonwealth of nations, Organization of African Unity and Economic Community of West Africa States. In November 2001, at the United Nations , Lamido described the corrosive impact of corruption on new democracies such as Nigeria, and called for “an international instrument” against transfer of looted funds abroad.

As Governor of Jigawa, Sule Lamido put the State on national scale with significant investments in infrastructure, healthcare, agriculture, housing & urban development, empowerment programmes, education, rural development and industrial projects. The elder statesman is also known for his capacity to build consensus across the nation.

Advertisements
Continue Reading

Features

Remembering Anthony Enahoro

Published

on

By Abiodun Komolafe

Advertisements

It is a settled fact that Anthony Eromosele Enahoro (July 22, 1923 – December 15, 2010) was an outstanding product of Nigeria’s pre-independence era. Enahoro moved one of the motions for independence and there’s a lot for us to look at in the context of the life he lived and the political firmament that brought him up. Therefore, remembering this Father of Nigerian Nationalism is to reminisce about an era where courage and conviction were the
currencies of change.

Advertisements

As a pioneering journalist, politician and champion of independence, Enahoro’s unwavering commitment to Nigeria’s self-rule has left an enduring legacy that continues to inspire generations. His remarkable story is a testament to the transformative power of leadership, perseverance and the unrelenting pursuit of freedom.

Building on his legacy as a champion of independence, Enahoro went on to serve in various capacities, including as Minister of Information and Labour. He was later tried alongside Obafemi Awolowo and others for treasonable felony, a trial that became infamous in Nigerian history. Although convicted, Enahoro was later released and continued to play a significant role in shaping Nigeria’s political landscape. 

Enahoro was an outstanding nationalist and a principled person, and this was evident in his involvement with the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO). Of course, there was no need for him and Alfred Rewane to have been involved in the struggle for the enthronement of democracy, particularly in the aftermath of the annulled June 12, 1993 presidential election won by MKO Abiola as they had too much to lose!. But they risked everything to fight for popular democracy, Although Rewane ultimately lost his life in the struggle, Enahoro was fortunate to have escaped the same fate.

Despite the risks and challenges, Enahoro remained unbending in his convictions, refusing to waver even in the face of adversity. As a gifted individual, he recognized that the issue at hand was not just about the violation of an individual's rights, but an affront to democracy and national sovereignty. He, along with Alfred Rewane and others fought for principles, not personalities. This commitment to principle was evident in their diverse backgrounds: Enahoro was a Christian from Uromi in Edo State, with Esan extraction; Rewane was a Christian of Urhobo descent from Delta State; and Abiola, whose rights they fought for, was a Muslim Yorubaman, from Ogun State. Unlike some NADECO members who howled with the wolves and bleated with the sheep for convenience, Enahoro was not
duplicitous. Unlike the crop of Janjaweeds who now populate our political landscape, he remained steadfast, refusing to compromise his values.

Olajumoke Ogunkeyede, a close ally of Enahoro, described him as “a man with a seriously fantastic sense of humour; Ogunkeyede, fondly called JMK, shared several instances of Enahoro’s ability to bring joy to those around him. His humorous takes on serious issues, such as the demons in Abuja, showcased his wit. Moreover, his clever commentaries, including his defence of now-President Bola Tinubu’s aspirations, and his ingenious use of allegories and analogies, like; Ogbuefi; and; Ogbueniyan’, collectively attested to the capacity of his wit and charm.

When writing about individuals like Enahoro, Rewane, Herbert Macaulay, Awolowo, Aminu Kano, Maitama Sule, and others, it’s essential to consider the context in which they lived. This context is bittersweet, as they represented an era where political activism was rooted in philosophical positions and guided by principles.

People during this time held strong convictions and were willing to make sacrifices for their beliefs. That’s why society was more orderly in their time, and it achieved proper sustainable development, unlike today where what we have is largely ‘growth without development’, to be polite, or, if we want to be impolite, ‘the development of underdevelopment’. Amidst this, our leaders continue to sing the same old, worn-out refrain while satiating a vacuous idolatry that elevates an ego bereft of substance, a hollow monolith that stands on feet of clay.

If we look at people like Enahoro and Adegoke Adelabu, their lives exemplified a paradox that underscored the tenuous relationship between knowledge and credentials. This was because, despite lacking university degrees, they possessed a profound intellectual depth that eluded many of their contemporaries who boasted an array of impressive certifications, forgetting that it is not the parchment that confers wisdom, but the depth of one's inquiry, the rigour of one's thought and the breadth of one’s understanding.

Enahoro became the youngest editor of Nnamdi Azikiwe's newspaper, the Southern Nigerian Defender, in 1944 at the age of 21 while Peter, his younger brother, became the editor of The Morning Star at the age of 23. The older Enahoro also worked with other publications, including Daily Comet and West African Pilot before parting ways with Azikiwe, whom he always referred to as his chairman, while Awolowo was his political leader. The reasons behind this preference are intriguing, but that’s a story for another time.

These early experiences laid the foundation for Enahoro’s later involvement with the Action Group (AG), a political party that shared his vision of ‘making life more abundant.’ Enahoro and the AG represented an understanding that the process of economic development must be structured and based on a philosophical thrust. In contrast, what is absurdly described as ‘politics’ today is terribly bad and basically transactional; and it’s driven by a cash-and-
carry mentality, where individuals seek to outdo one another in a chop-and-quench; political economy! No unity! No discipline! No structure! For them, any goose can cackle and any fly can find a sore place!

Looking at the plane, Enahoro’s life and career epitomized the complexities of Nigeria’s struggle for
independence and democracy. His life and work embodied the intersection of individual agency and structural forces that steered the trajectory of nations. As a prominent anti-colonial and pro- democracy activist, he played a pivotal role in the country’s transition from colonial rule to independence. The Adolor of Uromi and the Adolor of Onewa was a vocal critic of authoritarianism and a strong advocate for human rights. His perseverance in the face of resistance, setbacks and imprisonment demonstrates the dedication required to bring about
transformative change.

In moments of emotions and situations, we often discover our true strength and resilience. Enahoro has gone to the ages but his legacy continues to inspire, much like Abraham Lincolns. In simpler terms, he was a brave soul who dared to challenge the colonial powers. So, his legacy should serve as inspiration and role model for future generations, demonstrating the potential for excellence that exists within individuals and communities. In fairness to fate, Enahoro and his contemporaries were well-prepared for the liberation movement, thanks to their involvement in the West African Students Union (WASU) and their time at King’s College, Lagos. This institution, attended by Enahoro and Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, was a hotbed for political activism and discourse. To truly reboot, Nigerians must remember the personal histories of pioneers like Enahoro.

Today, we remember Enahoro, a pioneering figure who dared to dream of independence for Nigeria. We honour not only his significant contributions to Nigeria’s history but also his untiring commitment to democracy, self-determination and human rights. As we remember him and his dogged commitment to federalism and the quest for social justice, it is in our best interest to recreate the ethos and the spirit which created him and people like him.
May Anthony Enahoro’s spirit soar on the wings of eternal peace!

May his memory continue to serve as a testament to the enduring impact of individual agency
on the course of national history!

May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!

*KOMOLAFE wrote from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria (ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk)

Advertisements
Continue Reading

Trending


Address: 1st Floor, Nwakpabi Plaza, Suite 110, Waziri Ibrahim Crescent, Apo, Abuja
Tel: +234 7036084449; +234 7012711701
Email: capitalpost20@gmail.com | info@capitalpost.ng
Copyright © 2025 Capital Post