Ever since Israel's creation in 1948, defence capability and national security have been part and parcel to its identity and prominent in public discourse and the country's media coverage of itself. Frequent wars—chiefly in 1967 and 1973—have shaped a belief in the primacy of military expertise, guided by political leaders who all served in the army, some at very senior ranks.
Right-wing ideology and even religious Zionism have been able to thrive, especially during complicated events where military and political circles have overlapped. Under such conditions, the securitised idea of existential threat can be used to sideline and even paralyse diplomatic or strategic approaches toward conflict resolution.
A military culture
Israeli society strongly backs its military, with service being mandatory for both men and women (with some exceptions). It runs so deep that political and military leaders can easily suppress or ignore any voices raised against warmongering in the country. Constructive or thoughtful discussion of alternatives is often dismissed.
Over the current clash with Iran, this is happening even when the US intelligence community and the International Atomic Energy Agency have both determined there is no evidence that Iran is building a bomb.
To properly understand Iran's progress and uranium enrichment capabilities, it is essential to know the complex technical and political context surrounding it. Iran can reduce the time to produce a weapon should it decide to, but that does not mean nuclear arms are imminent, nor is it proof of an intent to build them. While Iran's accumulation of 400 kilogrammes of uranium enriched to 60%, as reported by IAEA's Director-General Rafael Grossi, is significant, it does not indicate an imminent nuclear capability.
While uranium enriched to 60% is higher than commonly used for civilian purposes and is closer to weapons grade, it is still below what is needed for a nuclear bomb, which is around 90%.
Crucially, despite the IAEA censure of Iran for alleged safeguards violations, Grossi explicitly stated that these have not led the agency to conclude that Iran was actively building nuclear weapons.
In March, US President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, told members of Congress that Iran was not moving towards building nuclear weapons, though she warned that Iran's "enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons."
Exaggerated rhetoric
The political rhetoric over national survival in Israel is exaggerated. A more level-headed presentation of the facts as they currently stand would help calm fears and pave the way for a peaceful resolution through negotiations.
If Netanyahu's government had adopted a more sober and considered political and media narrative, it may even have alleviated a lingering lack of confidence in much of Israeli society over the prime minister's mishandling of the hostage crisis and his brutality in the Gaza war.
Using the political discourse as a means to seek peace rather than justifying war via exaggerated threats would also have helped build trust in Israel's diplomatic options. But any such nuanced view contrasts with the longstanding position taken by Netanyahu and how he has portrayed the world to his own people.
For at least two decades, he has branded Iran's nuclear programme as posing an urgent and existential peril to Israel, demanding immediate military responses. He did so again just hours after the first wave of missile strikes against Iran, saying on 13 June: "In recent months, Iran has taken steps that it has never taken before: steps to weaponise enriched uranium".
This is how Israel's political and military leaders justify the costs they are asking their citizens to bear for security, including national service and mobilising citizens into the army: by talking up an existential threat to a terrified nation.
