One of the greatest strategic mistakes made by Western governments is assuming that every conflict can be explained through politics, economics, or geography. Modern democracies are accustomed to solving disputes through negotiation, compromise, and diplomacy. We naturally assume our adversaries seek the same outcomes.
But history has repeatedly demonstrated that not every enemy is motivated by the same calculus.
For decades, many policymakers have viewed groups such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Iranian regime primarily through a secular political lens. Their violence has often been explained as the product of poverty, occupation, nationalism, or historical grievances. While these factors can influence conflicts, they do not fully explain organizations whose own leaders openly frame their struggle in religious and ideological terms.
One of the most overlooked principles in foreign policy is remarkably simple: believe people when they repeatedly tell you what they intend to do.
Before October 7, 2023, Hamas made no secret of its objective to destroy Israel. Its leaders praised “martyrdom,” rejected permanent peace with the Jewish state, and repeatedly called for Israel’s elimination. Yet many outside observers continued to insist that economic incentives or political concessions would moderate the organization.
The massacre of October 7 shattered that illusion.
The attacks were not designed to secure a better negotiating position or win a diplomatic concession. They were acts of terror intended to inflict maximum suffering on civilians while advancing Hamas’s declared ideological objectives. The brutality of that day reminded the world that extremist movements cannot always be understood through the assumptions of liberal democracies.
The same lesson applies to Iran.
For years, Western governments have sought to change Tehran’s behavior through sanctions relief, negotiations, and diplomatic engagement. Diplomacy has an important role in international relations, but it cannot succeed if it ignores ideology. Iran’s leaders have consistently declared their hostility toward Israel, funded terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East, and invested enormous resources in groups committed to Israel’s destruction.
These are not isolated policy disagreements. They are long-term strategic commitments repeatedly articulated by the regime itself.
Israel understands this reality because it does not have the luxury of dismissing threats as rhetorical excess. When rockets are launched from Gaza, missiles are fired by Hezbollah, or Iranian leaders openly call for Israel’s destruction, Israelis cannot simply assume these statements are negotiating tactics. Their national security depends on taking such threats seriously.
Unfortunately, much of the international community often demands that Israel respond as though every adversary shares the same commitment to coexistence.
This misunderstanding has frequently produced policies that reward extremism rather than discourage it. It has also fueled unrealistic expectations that Israel can achieve peace through unilateral concessions while its enemies continue to reject its right to exist.
None of this means peace is impossible.
Israel has repeatedly demonstrated that it will make difficult compromises for genuine peace. Its peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan remain enduring examples of successful diplomacy. The Abraham Accords further proved that normalization between Israel and its Arab neighbors is achievable when leaders choose cooperation over confrontation.
The common denominator in each success was mutual recognition—not the abandonment of Israel’s security concerns.
Christians should be especially attentive to this distinction. Scripture calls believers to pursue peace, but biblical peace is never separated from truth or justice. Praying for the peace of Jerusalem (Psalm 122:6) includes recognizing the very real threats facing the people of Israel and refusing to minimize the ideology that motivates those who seek their destruction.
Supporting Israel does not require endorsing every decision made by every Israeli government. Democracies invite debate and accountability. But it does require acknowledging a fundamental truth: no nation can negotiate its existence with those who openly deny its right to exist.
The lesson for the West is clear.
Foreign policy built on wishful thinking is not compassion—it is strategic blindness. Genuine peace begins by understanding the world as it is, not as we hope it to be. That means taking extremist organizations at their word, recognizing the ideological motivations that drive them, and standing firmly with democratic allies confronting those threats.
Israel has learned this lesson through painful experience.
The rest of the world should not have to learn it the same way.