In the War Room: The Inside Story of Israel's Fight Against Hamas and the Iranian Axis, by Yonah Jeremy Bob and Elliot Kaufman (Wicked Son, 352 pp., $32.50)

You would be hard pressed to find a human being alive without an opinion about Israel, Iran, and Gaza. From Washington, D.C. to Jerusalem, almost anyone you meet could confidently provide a one-sentence summary of what went right and what went wrong with the latest twist or turn in the decades-long saga. But almost as certainly, that pat summary would be wrong, because the closer you look, the more complicated the picture becomes.

In their new book In the War Room, Yonah Jeremy Bob and Elliot Kaufman take readers on a journey through more than three years of decision-making by Israeli and American leaders. They trace the story day by day, and sometimes almost minute by minute, from the hours before October 7, 2023, through the delayed decision to invade Gaza, American and Israeli operations in Iran, targeted assassinations, and the various hostage deals. Taking advantage of the kind of access of which most investigative reporters could only dream, their account sheds light on everything from secret phone calls to top officials’ facial expressions.

The book’s subjects include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, former minister and Netanyahu political opponent Benny Gantz, and many of their American counterparts across two administrations. All the Israeli men depicted in Bob and Kaufman’s book come off as experienced, deeply patriotic, and mindful of their professional and personal failures that led to Hamas’s October 7 atrocities.

Spoiler alert: they all mostly hate each other. Bob and Kaufman unveil a fractured Israeli leadership faced with impossible decisions, fraught relationships, and a tightrope walk between diplomacy, politics, and war aims—with a leap of faith or two thrown into the mix.

The result of this portrayal is often confusion: readers may find themselves asking how a country that stunned the world with its Hollywood-style Hezbollah pager operation could be held together by leaders who often prefer to talk to the media instead of one another. How did a military that executed a flawless attack on Iran, with zero Israeli casualties and lost equipment, only manage to kill October 7 mastermind and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar by accident?

The answer, of course, is that war is chaotic and messy, especially when led by humans, which makes Bob and Kaufman’s accounts of tense conversations as gripping as the parts about jets and bombs. The authors are careful to stick to the facts, and the book sometimes reads like a play, focused heavily on dialogue and lots of subtext. Their commentary is intentionally sparse, letting readers decide for themselves which characters come off as winners and which losers (they tend to have a bit of both in them).

Both supporters and opponents of Benjamin Netanyahu will find surprises in this book. Bob and Kaufman depict a leader who is not as predictable as he seems. Rather, he comes off as much more cautious and calculating than many believe, stalling over the initial ground invasion of Gaza in late 2023 and various hostage deals. The book portrays Netanyahu as balancing skepticism in the capabilities of his military against the conflicting goals of his far-right political allies, all while trying to smooth over ruffles with Biden and Trump administrations that are, respectively, mistrustful and unpredictable.

At other times, however, Netanyahu shows a different side. For example, in deciding to assassinate Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah, he seems to have chosen seeking forgiveness rather than permission, staking the fate of the U.S.-Israel relationship on the skill of a few young pilots.

Bob and Kaufman’s presentation of the Israeli relationship with two U.S. presidential administrations will be eye-opening for American readers. American decision-makers, especially under Biden, consistently pushed for negotiations and de-escalation. But in the Middle East, your neighbors and enemies get a vote on whether de-escalation is an option—a fact often lost on Americans, who enjoy the favorable geographic security situation pithily summed up by Israeli diplomat Tal Becker’s definition of American exceptionalism: “Ocean, Ocean, Canada, Mexico.”

Both the Biden and Trump administrations seemed to change their tone following successful Israeli operations. The Biden team gave more weight to anti-Israel social-media messaging and campus protests; Israeli leadership constantly had to weigh taking actions that would protect citizens against the delivery date of the next weapons shipment. In the case of the contentious invasion of Rafah, Biden (and notable map student Kamala Harris) were firmly opposed, and Netanyahu’s hesitation cost Israel valuable time, as well as potential tactical wins.

As for Trump, it’s no secret that the president likes “winners.” Once Israel proved its ability to clear Iranian air space for those “Beautiful B2s,” he joined the party. It’s even implied that Vice President J. D. Vance also played a key role in the U.S. decision to strike Iran during the 2025 Midnight Hammer operation, following a phone call first reported in this book. During the call, IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir presented Israel’s aerial dominance of Iran to Vance, who thanked him; shortly afterward, the American bombers took flight. Vance even made a bit of history when he asked to meet with Zamir in 2025—the first VP ever to visit an IDF chief’s office to thank him personally, write Bob and Kaufman.

In part due to the volatility of the U.S.-Israeli relationship under both administrations, Netanyahu has been winking at East Asian and South American partners, hinting at perhaps moving from an “exclusive” to an “open” relationship with the U.S.—a message that seems to be resonating with the Trump administration as well. Clearly, the years since the October 7 attacks have played a part in this shift. In the War Room details the crucial decisions but also illustrates how the stakes in Israel’s wars are now even higher: it’s not just about reshaping the Middle East but also about a shaky alliance with the United States. Achieving victory on the battlefield plays a key role in whether America will support, or even just tolerate, Israel’s actions. At this point, Israelis will settle for either.

I remember the morning Charlie Kirk was shot. I was sitting at my desk in Washington State when my social media timeline started to buzz with news of an assassination attempt in Utah. At first, some reports said he was being treated and, for a while, many hoped might survive. Soon, those messages faded and the reports grew more ominous. An assassin had shot Charlie through the neck and killed him.

I was devastated. I spent the next week in a daze, speaking to people across the conservative movement. That week, many felt that the tragedy might have a silver lining, that Charlie’s death might move people to set aside petty differences and come together for the good of the country. That was his mission and, for a moment, it seemed that everyone was trying to honor it.

Instead, his death marked the shattering of the American Right.

The immediate consequence was an epistemological collapse. Charlie Kirk was a political operator, and never shy about using provocation, spectacle, and controversy as part of his method. But he was always tethered to political reality and oriented toward political success. He was sensitive to public opinion and kept in touch with an unbelievable number of people in the real world. At his best, he tried to discipline elements of the Right, steer them away from delusion and conspiracy theories, and focus them on winning elections.

After his murder, that restraint disappeared. Candace Owens spent a full year promoting vicious conspiracy theories about Charlie’s death. The Groyper faction turned anti-Semitic conspiracy theories into a digital business model. The thought patterns of QAnon, once relegated to the fringes, devoured the minds of a growing number of conservatives. And young men, often tempted by these narratives, no longer had Charlie to guide them.

President Trump, too, lost an important influence. In the months before he was killed, Kirk was urging the president to pay attention to voters who were feeling the stress of inflation and the cost-of-living crisis. He tried to lay out a program focused on kitchen-table economics, bringing down the cost of housing, and helping the young feel a sense of optimism about the future. He also warned against getting drawn into a prolonged war in the Middle East, which, among other things, would raise the price of gas and consumer staples.

After Kirk’s death, the White House seemed to downplay this economic message. Trump boasted about the surging stock market, became preoccupied with building his grand ballroom, and launched the military strikes on Iran, which sent gas prices soaring.

The consequences became obvious this week. Voters told exit pollsters that the economy was their top issue. They were angry about the cost of groceries, gas, utilities, health care, and housing. And voters held a negative view of Trump’s economy by a 50-point margin—disastrous numbers that no president can outrun.

It’s the same story with corruption. After Charlie’s murder, I had hoped for a renewed commitment to political principle and public spirit. But as I watched people in high places, including some close to the Trump administration, it seemed as if we had reached the end of idealism and that naked self-enrichment was increasingly prevalent.

The Democrats shrewdly turned this to their advantage. When I appeared on The Ezra Klein Show in June, Klein pressed me on the Trump family’s crypto ventures and the president’s apparent pay-for-pardon scheme. I told Klein that the crypto launch was wrong and the pardons ill-advised. The corruption was indefensible.

The ultimate consequence was at the ballot box. Republicans faced a historic rebuke in the midterm elections, and will now have to pick up the pieces, resolve internal debates, and rebuild. The Right should be honest about what happened and have the strength of character to allow justice to proceed against corruption, while fighting unjust political reprisals.

Charlie Kirk was a political man who embraced the ambiguities and compromises that a political life demands. At his best, he was also a patriot and an idealist who wanted the best for his country. That is the legacy he left behind, and one we should honor.