We Should All Hope Israel Succeeds

By Jonah Goldberg

Friday, June 13, 2025

 

I just got back from our annual lunch with The Dispatch interns, who are—almost—always a very impressive bunch of young people. (Let them stew and debate over which justified my use of “almost”—it keeps them on their toes.) Before that I had a meeting, a podcast, and I had to drop my car off for repairs at the mechanic, which is always a joy.

 

I bring this up not because it is interesting—it’s not!—but to simply explain that I am pressed for time. I would have skipped the G-File entirely, but I hate missing deadlines and Steve told the young’n’s that I thrive under such pressure, so now I feel obliged.

 

I also bring it up to explain why I am not going to write much about the thing everyone wants to talk about: Israel’s apparently wildly successful strike on Iran which started last night and continues as I write. I say “apparently” only because there are many conflicting reports, it’s not over yet, and if they don’t actually take out, or at least very seriously degrade, Iran’s nuclear program then it may have not been wholly worth the effort.

 

But man, it looks successful—so far. Herewith a few provisional thoughts and impressions.

 

For starters, the already obvious success of Israel’s drone operation from within Iranian territory is further proof—exemplified by Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb—that military planners everywhere have to do a lot of rethinking. Lots of military assets—bases, airfields, power plants, etc.—are a lot less safe than they were a few years ago. When the only threats were a missile launched from afar, internal sabotage, or trucks loaded with explosives, good internal security, barbed wire fences, and perimeter patrols were sufficient. Now that such attacks can be launched from nearby with Trojan Horse trucks, everybody everywhere is going to have to adjust.

 

On the political front, if it is even partially true that the Trump administration deliberately helped distract Iran from thinking there was an imminent attack, never mind if it helped Israel pull this off, it deserves a good deal of credit and praise. And, if you’re on Team Iran, or are anti-Israel for one reason or another—or simply think maintaining the Obama-Biden and Biden-Harris Middle East policies of talking in fancy hotel conference rooms over plates of runny cheese while Iran develops a nuclear weapon and funds proxies bent on destroying Israel is the way to go—then the Trump administration deserves a good deal of blame and criticism. But that’s not where I am.

 

So, kudos to the Trump administration.

 

Now, I said “if it is even partially true” that Donald Trump helped, because I don’t think it will turn out to be wholly true. If Trump could have gotten a deal with Iran of the sort Steve Witkoff was pursuing, I think he probably would have taken it. But it’s clear that Iran wasn’t interested in that, and Israel definitely wasn’t. So my hunch is that Trump was faced with two options he didn’t love and sided with the better of the two. That he wants to take perhaps more credit than he deserves is not so damning. All presidents do that. And that he wants to take some degree of ownership of Israel’s success is a good thing because of the signals that it sends, to friends and foes alike.

 

This is also a blow to the self-described realists. Because realists have a tendency to overemphasize the importance of power, they often end up overestimating both the power of regimes and the permanence of that power. This was a point that George Orwell made about James Burnham, the longtime leading foreign policy intellectual of the right and regular columnist for National Review.

 

In one of his greatest essays, “Second Thoughts on James Burnham,” Orwell identified one of the few blind spots in Burnham’s worldview. Because he thought raw power was determinative of success, Burnham struggled to appreciate that those who possessed it could ever fail. He suffered from a kind of power-worship and, as Orwell wrote, “Power-worship blurs political judgment because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue.” This led Burnham to repeatedly be blindsided by events that didn’t conform to straight-line projections. “Within the space of five years,” Orwell writes, “Burnham foretold the domination of Russia by Germany and of Germany by Russia. In each case he was obeying the same instinct: the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment, to accept the existing trend as irreversible.”

 

Power is not destiny. Or, at the very least, the sort of power realists focus on to the exclusion of other factors—willpower, ideology, ingenuity, corruption, etc.—is not destiny. If it was, Rome, never mind the Soviet Union, would never have fallen.

 

If you’ve never read Lin Wells’ famous memo on how every decade ends very differently than the smartest planners would have predicted, I will take no offense if you leave here to go read it. It makes this point better than I can.

 

But to update the point, when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it was easy to find all sorts of people who bought Vladimir Putin’s claim that the whole “special operation” would be over in days. They were all wrong. Why? Because for all Russia’s vaunted might, it turned out that a smaller country with a sense of pride and national identity would not so easily agree to be devoured.

 

The same sort of thinking applied to how many so-called realists thought (until about 24 hours ago) about Iran. It’s a permanent fixture as a regional power and it is determined to be a regional hegemon. Therefore, the smart set reasoned, the best the West could do was manage Iran’s ascent. (This is one reason Barack Obama was so unmoved by Iranian protests against the regime: They can’t win, so why encourage them?) But Israel understood that this was a strategy for slowly feeding Israel—another small, proud, nation—to Iran.

 

Hail ants.

 

Okay, enough with the snap punditry. As I just indicated, things can very easily take a different course and definitive judgments can wait. So, let’s get a little more jocular but stay on the topic of power and power-worship.

 

Yesterday, on The Dispatch Podcast roundtable, David French made a joke about the burning of the Waymo driverless cars in Los Angeles. He apologized in advance to the Cylons for the slaughter of their kin and wanted to make sure they knew he had nothing to do with it.

 

I noted that this reminded me of the cockroach-alien-in-an-Edgar suit in Men in Black who was protective of his critter-cousins here on earth. Indeed, he failed his mission because Will Smith taunted him into turning back from his escape ship by squashing cockroaches under his foot. “I’m sorry … was that your auntie?”

 

I like thinking about stuff like this. And since Father’s Day is fast approaching, I should probably give credit—or blame—to my dad. As I’ve recounted before, every year at Thanksgiving dinner he could be counted on making one of two jokes. At the end of the meal, with the remains of the turkey carcass splayed out on a tray, he’d turn to me and very gravely ask me something like, “Jonah, if we gathered the greatest doctors and scientists in the world, do you think they could save this turkey’s life?”

 

The other joke came at the beginning of the meal when the intact cooked bird was brought out. He’d pick up the carving utensils and say to me, “Jonah, you do realize that if there was a planet with a race of super-intelligent turkeys watching what we’re about to do, this would be considered an atrocity and a justification for war?” Then he’d start slicing.

 

Years later, one of my proudest moments was making Charles Krauthammer laugh at something I’d written for The Corner. The president was scheduled to address some scientific discovery by NASA. There was a lot of chatter about whether it was about alien life having been discovered (I don’t remember why). I “predicted” that NASA had made contact with an intelligent advanced alien civilization that was made up entirely of Jews. Billions and billions of technologically advanced Jews with lasers and spaceships. And, I jokingly prophesied, a lot of people would start acting like David French, apologizing to the Cylons or Kent Brockman welcoming our “new insect overlords.”

 

It became a running gag between Charles and me. We liked to talk about the politicians and intellectuals who’d suddenly change their tunes on Israel or the Joooz. I remember comparing it to that scene in Stripes when Bill Murray’s girlfriend complains about how he spends all day playing Tito Puente albums. Murray responds, “One of these days, Tito Puente is going to be dead, and you’re going to say, ‘I’ve been listening to him for years and I think he’s fabulous.’”

 

Watching Pat Buchanan suddenly declare, “Israel? I love Israel!” Would be a gas. Suddenly, everyone would start using Yiddish phrases and talking about how hard it is to find a good bagel.

 

Power corrupts.

 

As I’m running out of time, I hope you’ll forgive me recycling a point I’ve made before. The famous Lord Acton quote about how “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is almost always used to describe the corruption of the powerful. Acton surely agreed with such points. In the letter the famous quote comes from, he says, “Great men are almost always bad men.” Though, he didn’t necessarily believe it as an Iron Law. Not every powerful person is wicked, nor does more power necessarily make them more wicked. But it’s a good rule of thumb.

 

His more direct point was that historians and intellectuals shouldn’t bend their standards for the powerful. His friend Mandell Creighton was working on a book about the Reformation-era popes and had asked Acton to eyeball the manuscript. Acton argued that he was cutting them too much slack:

 

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. … Here are the greatest names coupled with the greatest crimes; you would spare those criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher for the sake of historical science. Quite frankly, I think there is no greater error. The inflexible integrity of the moral code is, to me, the secret of the authority, the dignity, the utility of History.

 

History, and historiography, is full of this stuff. Legions of intellectuals will instinctively agree that a banker or mechanic who murders his wife should be held to account. But Stalin? Out come the “break a few eggs to make an omelet” metaphors. French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, who loved to say things like “Better to die on one’s feet than to live on one’s knees,” was an apologist for Chinese dictator Mao Zedong. Michele Foucault, another French philosopher, loved to denounce systems of oppression, but he was tumescent with excitement for Ruhollah Khomeini’s Iranian revolution. Thomas Carlyle, Georg Hegel, Lord Byron: They just loved Napoleon’s musk. Hegel described the little corporal as “the world-spirit on horseback.” Men like Napoleon, Hegel wrote, “may be called Heroes, inasmuch as they have derived their purposes and their vocation not from the calm regular course of things … but from a concealed fount—from that inner Spirit, still hidden beneath the surface…”  

 

Many of the people who decry the threat of “theocracy” here at home or denounce it in Israel rarely seem to show much concern about  it in Iran. Why? Partly because they lack the conviction to hold non-Western societies to the standards they insist on applying at home. I think some of this is a kind of condescending essentialism that values “authenticity” of non-Western cultures while decrying any talk that Western cultures have an authentic culture, too. Who are we to judge these other societies?

 

But some of it is just power-worship. The conviction that Israel is a colonizer-state trampling the authentic indigenous natives is partly an ideological conviction. But the desire to see Israel erased or to have it otherwise submit to its enemies is put into action because Israel’s enemies think it is  possible. Israel is small and outnumbered. It depends on Western support. So if we can “globalize the intifada,” we can get rid of it. That was the key thinking behind October 7 and the countless other terrorist attacks and outright wars against Israel. Hamas explicitly sold its strategy on the belief that eradicating Israel—which, you know, is genocide—was possible. Such thinking only works on those who believe it. If everyone understood that it was futile, what would be the point?

 

The best evidence for this is the way so many of the people who scream about Israel’s “apartheid” and “genocide” do not much care about apartheid and genocide elsewhere. China has real apartheid because it practices Han supremacy. Ethnic minorities have fewer rights in China. They are second-class citizens, denied the right to internal migration, access to schools, good jobs, etc. China is also genocidal, or near-genocidal if you want to quibble about semantics. It has been ethnically cleansing Tibet for decades and it is committing cultural genocide in Xinjiang. Heck, China still has slave labor. Where, I ask you, is the outrage about that? Did I miss Ta Nehisi-Coates’ scorching denunciations?

 

No. Because China is powerful. That’s not the only reason, but it is the indispensable reason.

 

China is hardly alone in being a far worse actor on the standards—mostly false—used to declare Israel illegitimate. Roughly 90 percent of the residents in Qatar are essentially a a lumpenproletariat and little more. Indeed, across the Middle East, slavery is a live issue. But we’re told Zionism is the problem.

 

The best thing that could happen for the Middle East is for Israel to succeed (a close second would be for the Iranian regime to be finally overthrown by the Iranian people). I don’t mean temporary success, as good as that would be. I mean the kind of success that causes other regimes to make peace, not so much with Israel, but with the idea that Israel isn’t going anywhere. That would result in all of these regimes vowing the eventual destruction of Israel and using Palestinians as props in order to distract from their own domestic failures and corruption to finally knock it off and start delivering actual economic and political progress for their people. Over time, actual peace would come. And if you’re the sort of person who thinks politicians like Bibi Netanyahu “exploit” national security concerns for politics you don’t like—a defensible position within reason—then the best way to transform Israeli politics more to your liking is to convince average Israelis that something like October 7 will never happen again. Until that day, this small, proud nation will do what it takes to protect itself. And, hopefully, her friends will help.