By Sefa Yürükel
Two Leaders, One Strategy
The most dangerous political figures in modern history are generally those for whom personal interests and national interests become indistinguishable. In the geopolitical landscape of the 2020s, two names fitting this description most strikingly stand out: Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. These two leaders, waging war on different geographies against different enemies, share a strikingly similar strategic logic: Escalating and expanding the war is seen as the sole way out of a domestic political dead end.
However, it is impossible to read the personal calculations of these two leaders independently from the interests of the structural powers behind them. Neoconservative circles in Washington, the global arms industry, energy cartels, and think tanks ideologically committed to the “perpetual war” doctrine provide strategic depth and logistical capacity to Netanyahu and Zelensky’s personal agendas. This symbiotic relationship brings together all the necessary components for regional conflicts to turn into a much broader global war.
Netanyahu: War as a Strategy to Escape Judicial Prosecution
Pre-October 7 Fragility
Binyamin Netanyahu, long before the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, was the most fragile prime minister in Israel’s history. The “Case 1000, 2000, and 4000” processes, ongoing with charges of corruption, bribery, and breach of trust, had the potential to end his political career. The controversial judicial reform initiative led to historic divisions in Israeli society and brought hundreds of thousands to the streets. In this internal crisis environment, the war functioned not just as a security matter for Netanyahu but also as an existential political lifeline.
Personal Benefit Derived from the Escalation of War
The onset of the Gaza War provided Netanyahu with three critical political advantages. First, the corruption trials and the judicial reform crisis fell off the public agenda under the rhetoric of “national unity.” Second, the formation of the war cabinet bound the opposition to the government, narrowing the space for criticism. Third, and most critically, the indefinite prolongation of the war enabled Netanyahu to postpone the prospect of early elections and preserve his prime ministerial seat.
Netanyahu’s desire to expand the war is not limited to Gaza. Calls for military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran-backed forces in Syria, and ultimately Iran itself reflect a strategy of continuously expanding the geographical scope of the conflict. An attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is not only a part of Israel’s regional security doctrine but also the key to a “perpetual war” situation that would extend Netanyahu’s political lifespan.
Zelensky: The Geopolitical Hostage of Existential Dependency
The Anatomy of Political Transformation
Volodymyr Zelensky was a leader elected in 2019 on a promise of peace. The rhetoric of ending the conflict in Donbas and establishing dialogue with Russia was the fundamental difference separating him from Petro Poroshenko’s nationalist line. However, the full scale Russian invasion of February 2022 forced Zelensky into a radical transformation. This transformation was not merely a reflex imposed by war conditions but also a process of building a new political identity for Zelensky.
The War Prolongation Dynamic
For Zelensky, the end of the war harbors an existential risk. The “national hero” image built during wartime can rapidly erode under peace conditions. The war economy, extraordinary powers, and financial aid flowing from the West have provided the Zelensky administration with a capacity for resources and control unimaginable before the war. This dependency structure creates a structural dynamic pushing Zelensky to systematically avoid peace negotiations and demand the escalation of the war.
Zelensky’s demands for long-range missiles, attacks on Russian territory, and calls for NATO’s direct intervention cannot be explained by military necessities alone. These demands are also elements of a strategy to consolidate Zelensky’s position as the “indispensable leader” by expanding the geographical scope of the war. Each step of escalation solidifies Zelensky’s domestic political standing and postpones the risk of a reckoning he might face in a post-war Ukraine.
The Background Powers: The Structural Actors of War
The Return of the Neoconservative Movement
The individual motives of Netanyahu and Zelensky are in perfect alignment with the strategic vision of the neoconservative movement in the U.S. Since the end of the Cold War, neoconservatives have pursued the goal of re-establishing U.S. global hegemony through military power. This movement, having retreated after the failure of the Iraq War, has risen back to a central position with the Ukraine and Israel wars.
For these circles, Netanyahu’s demands for an attack on Iran and Zelensky’s insistence on an all-out war with Russia are two parts of the same strategic whole: to simultaneously weaken U.S. rivals (Russia, China, Iran) and to legitimize unlimited resource transfers to the American military-industrial complex. Think tanks such as the Foreign Policy Initiative, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation provide the intellectual infrastructure for this “two-front war” strategy.
The Wheels of the Military Industrial Complex
The military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about in 1961 is experiencing its golden age in the 2020s. The hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine has provided an unprecedented flow of orders to U.S. and European defense industries. The stock values of giant companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics have multiplied since the beginning of the war.
Military aid to Israel and the escalation of tension in the Middle East are also part of the same economic logic. For the arms industry, war is not just an area of profit but also an ecosystem where products are tested and continuous demand is guaranteed. This structural interest provides strong lobbying support for the war expansion demands of leaders like Netanyahu and Zelensky.
The Hidden Hand of the Energy Sector
Another structural driving force of war is the global energy sector. The exclusion of Russia from the European market has created a massive market for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) producers. A potential conflict with Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz would raise oil prices, providing windfall profits for energy giants. These economic motives explain why diplomatic solution efforts are continuously undermined and why war remains a preferred option.
Conclusion: The Operators of the War Machine
Netanyahu and Zelensky are not the architects of a great war, but rather its operators. Because their personal political interests align with the strategic objectives of the background structural powers, these two leaders play a critical role in the escalation of the war. Netanyahu needs the expansion of the conflict to escape judicial prosecution, while Zelensky needs it to protect himself from post-war political uncertainty.
However, what feeds and enables these individual motives is the tripartite structure formed by neoconservative ideology, the military-industrial complex, and the energy sector. This structure perceives peace as a threat and war as an opportunity, and acts accordingly.
The real danger awaiting the world is this symbiotic relationship spiraling out of control. Regional conflicts started for personal interests can rapidly turn into a global conflagration with the involvement of structural powers. History has repeatedly shown that great wars often begin with small calculations, but their consequences are never calculable. This dynamic, embodied today in the persons of Netanyahu and Zelensky, represents the greatest existential threat facing humanity.
References
Barber, B. R. (1992). Jihad vs. McWorld. Times Books.
Chomsky, N. (2003). Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance. Metropolitan Books.
Eisenhower, D. D. (1961). Farewell Address to the Nation. National Archives.
International Institute for Strategic Studies. (2024). The Military Balance 2024. IISS.
Johnson, C. (2004). The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. Metropolitan Books.
Kagan, R., & Kristol, W. (2000). Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign and Defense Policy. Encounter Books.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2014). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
Morgenthau, H. J. (1948). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and Ideology. Harvard University Press.
SIPRI. (2024). Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2023. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Stiglitz, J. E., & Bilmes, L. J. (2008). The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. W. W. Norton & Company.
Tooze, A. (2021). Shutdown: How Covid Shook the World’s Economy. Viking.
Walt, S. M. (2018). The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Sefa Yürükel
Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA)
Aarhus University, 1997
Independent Researcher
Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Sociology, Psychology, Cultural Studies, Systems and Structures.
Bir yanıt yazın