Updated at 3:12 p.m. ET on October 7, 2023

What a difference a week makes.

Just eight days ago, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, speaking at The Atlantic Festival, rattled off a long list of positive developments in the Middle East, developments that were allowing the Biden administration to focus on other regions and other problems. A truce was holding in Yemen. Iranian attacks against U.S. forces had stopped. America’s presence in Iraq was “stable.” The good news crescendoed with this statement: “The Middle East region is quieter today than it has been in two decades.”

One week later, a shocking, multifront attack launched by the Iranian-supported Hamas against Israel has turned the Middle East into a maelstrom. The assault, almost 50 years to the day after the surprise Arab attack on Israel that marked the opening of the Yom Kippur War, could represent a paradigm-shifting moment as big as 9/11. So far, more than 100 Israelis are confirmed dead and many hundreds more gravely injured in a coordinated attack by Hamas terrorists who infiltrated by land, sea, and air. A thousand tragedies will unfold—at the moment, an unknown number of Israeli civilians and soldiers might be held hostage in Gaza. As of this writing, nearly 200 are reported dead in Israeli reprisal raids. The Israeli army has activated at least 100,000 reservists, and a full-scale ground invasion of Gaza is plausible, if not probable.

Behind this moment are failures of intelligence, but also of imagination. The Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has styled himself as “Mr. Security” for decades, will have much to answer for in the coming weeks and months. But Sullivan’s comments, made onstage in Washington to The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, also suggest how little sense there was among Biden officials that something like this could happen. “Challenges remain,” Sullivan said in his comments last week. “Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, the tensions between Israelis and Palestinians. But the amount of time I have to spend on crisis and conflict in the Middle East today, compared to any of my predecessors going back to 9/11, is significantly reduced.” (His remarks begin at 58:52 in the video below.)

In the coming days, there is no doubt that Sullivan’s Pollyannaish view will be subjected to great scrutiny. Hamas, and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies, have not made a secret of their ultimate aims. Beyond wishful thinking, the cause of the hopefulness articulated by Sullivan might be this: the developing deal to establish formal relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia—a developing deal that is most likely developing no more.

The Biden administration and Netanyahu have been deeply invested in such an agreement, and the desire for it might have created a blindness among Israelis and Americans alike about what was happening just over the border in Gaza. “We wanted to try and pretend that this conflict was isolated and contained and didn’t need our attention,” Yaakov Katz, the former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, told me today hours after the invasion.

“There is clearly in his comments a perception that Iranian options for disrupting were limited,” Dennis Ross, a Middle East peace negotiator in several administrations, told me, referring to Sullivan’s earlier assertions. “You don’t make that statement unless you think the Iranian options for disrupting are limited. And obviously at this point that proves not to be correct.”

On Netanyahu’s side, an agreement with the Saudis would help distract from the ongoing domestic unrest in Israel over the judicial overhaul his right-wing coalition has sought and that has led to nearly a year of protests. For Biden, a peace agreement would help bolster his foreign policy record going into the 2024 elections—with the possible effect of erasing memories of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Out of these twinned interests emerged the goal of de-escalation and quiet—a noble desire, to be sure. The United States, for its part, is eager to do more than just respond to crises in the region and seems to have been genuinely caught by surprise (“There is never any justification for terrorism,” read a statement from the NSC). But it apparently didn’t take into account Iran’s capabilities for sowing such crises. Behind the Hamas attack can be seen the desperation in Tehran to avoid the chance of a handshake between Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman. (Iran, a longtime backer of Hamas, celebrated today’s attacks.)

“The attack is so extreme and unusual that it is almost impossible to imagine Israel feeling comfortable with a return to the status quo ante in Gaza,” Hussein Ibish, the senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, told me. A change to Israel’s control over Gaza, which Ibish sees as inevitable, will affect the negotiations with Saudi Arabia. The Saudis need a concession from the Israelis in the Palestinian conflict to move forward, which seems hard to fathom now. “The conditions and the terms and the contexts have been thrown into radical uncertainty,” Ibish said.

Ross said he doesn’t think that it’s clear the Hamas invasion will necessarily spell the end of what had been a period of less tension. “A lot depends on how this comes out. If it comes out looking like Hamas succeeded and Iran succeeded, well, then we’re looking at a region that’s going to look quite hopeless for a long time to come. But if this comes out in a way where they expended their best efforts and they ended up being set back—losing—well, then the prospects for the region can look much more hopeful.”

At the moment, it seems Iran is getting its wish, and at the expense of Gaza’s population. Israel is at war, prepared to launch a major campaign against Hamas in retaliation. Further death and destruction will surely follow. And the truism holds: The only constant in the Middle East is precipitous and dramatic change. The “quiet” that Sullivan was observing—if it ever existed as more than just a wish—is already a distant memory.

The attacks by Hamas against Israel beginning early this morning, some that are ongoing, will be met by Israel with force. How this all unfolds, and its impact on domestic and geopolitics, is not clear, but a simple answer may suffice for now: not well. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already warned his citizens that they are at war, civil reservists have been called up, there are videos of hand battles on the streets. The country is on lockdown, with the potential for future strikes in the south by Hamas and new ones by Hezbollah in the north. A country torn apart by domestic divisions seems to be united against a common enemy. As of this writing, the death toll is confirmed at a minimum of 70 Israelis, with hundreds of more wounded.

One aspect of this needs little analysis, but a lot of explanation: How did Israel’s extensive counterterrorism efforts fail to pick up an attack waged on land, sea, and air? How did its defenses fail so extensively? This wasn’t just an intelligence failure. It was an everything failure. Israeli and American commentators are already describing this as Israel’s 9/11, but that comparison is a crutch. 9/11 was about, in the words of the commission that reviewed it, a “failure of imagination” to understand what could happen in America, a nation that had not encountered foreign terror threats of any significant magnitude. Israel has existed, still exists, with that very imaginable prospect as part of its national being.

To focus on Israel’s preparedness in no way excuses the Hamas attacks and is not meant to blame the victim. Some on social media are carelessly suggesting that the failures can only be explained by some evil “wag the dog” effort by Netanyahu to unify the country by going to war. Israel has been attacked, and civilians are dead. As in any nation that encounters such a horror, it is essential for the government to determine—without the interference of politics or religion—why. Otherwise, enemies will take advantage of this devastating day for Israel’s counterterrorism strategy.

Israel’s counterterrorism efforts are extensive, and well supported by the United States. (As a member of the faculty at Harvard’s Kennedy School, I have taught many Israelis in homeland security and counterterrorism planning.) The Israelis infiltrate terrorist groups and pay off members for intelligence. They destroy infrastructure in Gaza as a deterrence. Family members of suspected terrorists are not off limits. Israel has long utilized assassination against its enemies in Iran and elsewhere. Signal intelligence, shared with and from allies and even Arab countries, is plentiful. Bombing raids and military excursions against Hamas are part of Israel’s counterterrorism mission.

None of this apparently picked up, or at least picked up with enough time, the signs of an attack. Just a few days ago, the Gaza border seemed to have been stabilized after some unrest, and nearly 20,000 workers were able to travel across it again. Today, thousands of rockets, which must have been obtained and hidden, were launched by Hamas. It did not end there. Hamas used drones to strike at Israeli targets. It sent its fighters on foot, by boat, and by air on motorized paragliders. Images have emerged of Hamas attackers on the streets of Israeli towns terrorizing citizens, and worse. This is as much a physical attack as a performative one: Watch us, Hamas seems to be saying. Hamas surely planned for the attack to take place on the Jewish holy day of Simchat Torah and on the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War.

But that is only one piece of what Israel is going to have to reckon with from an operational perspective in the days ahead. It is one thing to not imagine such an attack could occur. It is another to seemingly not have the defense in place to be ready. Israel takes its preparation for such attacks seriously; most citizens are under mandatory conscription. It tests its response and evacuation systems regularly. It recently built an extensive technology wall—including radar, cameras, and sensors—on 65 kilometers of the Gaza barrier. Its emergency management capabilities are mature. Still, at this writing, Hamas seems to have control over several populated areas in southern Israel. Hamas’ drones seem to have penetrated parts of Israel without reports of counterdrone efforts. Iron Dome, Israel’s famous counter weapons system, was no match for a multifaceted terror campaign, akin to the 2008 Mumbai attacks in India.

Most systems under persistent attack will eventually fail. Over the course of this century, Israel has been able to stop numerous terror plots, some supported by Iran and some by other countries. It could not do so today, to spectacular effect. Not now, but soon, Israel will have to contend with how, in the modern era, it encountered a massive security failure not seen since the Yom Kippur War. Finding the answer is Israel's obligation to itself.

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

Sam Bankman-Fried’s image as a man indifferent to authority helped him ascend. Now, on trial for fraud, the onetime enfant terrible of finance is colliding with an arena of American life where decorum counts.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

Trump reportedly divulges nuclear secrets. Comedians only care about comedy. The standard advice for concussions is wrong.

The Rules Apply

Sam Bankman-Fried’s parents looked on, stony-faced, as a former employee and friend of their son testified against him in federal court on Wednesday. Asked to identify the defendant, the witness described Bankman-Fried as the man wearing a suit and a purple tie. A year ago, Bankman-Fried was the golden boy of the tech world; observers had no indication that he would wind up in court facing federal fraud charges. That he would appear in a suit and tie, having traded his shaggy curls for close-cropped hair, seemed likewise improbable. The onetime maverick of Silicon Valley looked, from where I was sitting a few rows back in the courtroom, like any other defendant.

The rules, for a time, didn’t apply to Sam Bankman-Fried. Throughout his rise as a crypto leader, Bankman-Fried eschewed formality, consciously cultivating a messy, zany persona. He met with dignitaries in cargo shorts. His hair, constantly unkempt, became a sort of synecdoche for his unbothered attitude (when FTX was gaining renown, he reportedly told a colleague that it was important that his hair stay long so that he would look “crazy”). Now he is confronting a corner of American life reliant on decorum and fact. After FTX’s implosion last year, Bankman-Fried faces seven charges of financial crimes including wire fraud (he has pleaded not guilty to all charges). If convicted, he could face decades in prison. The law, though often unevenly enforced, can at its best serve as an equalizer, where even the powerful must face consequences if they cross lines.

In court this week, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, a federal-court stalwart who presided over E. Jean Carroll’s case against Donald Trump and other high-profile trials, seemed to epitomize the dignified institution Bankman-Fried is facing. Kaplan did not seem inclined to throw his weight around on behalf of the defendant. On Wednesday afternoon, after the jury filed out, Mark Cohen, one of Bankman-Fried’s defense lawyers, beseeched the judge to help get his client his full prescribed dosage of Adderall. “My problem, of course, is that the last I know, I don’t have a medical license,” the judge snipped, advising that the lawyers contact the Bureau of Prisons about the matter. Bankman-Fried has exasperated this judge in the past: In August, Kaplan ordered the defendant to jail after various infractions (among other things, Bankman-Fried leaked the diary entries of his ex-girlfriend, former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, to The New York Times).

Bankman-Fried ascended in part based on the idea that he was different from everyone else—smarter, more trustworthy, uniquely able to make sense of the byzantine complexities of cryptocurrency markets. His pedigreed past—he’s an MIT graduate with Stanford Law–professor parents—added to his persona as a disruptive whiz kid. Now the crux of the government’s case against him is that he isn’t so different after all: Bankman-Fried, prosecutors charge, committed good old-fashioned theft.

Using frank language stripped of euphemism, a prosecutor explained to the jury on Wednesday the state’s case of how Bankman-Fried committed fraud on a mass scale. In his opening statement, the government lawyer used, by my count, a version of the word lied 26 times, stole 12 times, took 23 times, and fraud 13 times. Bankman-Fried, the lawyer explained to jurors, stole billions of dollars of customer deposits in order to furnish a lavish lifestyle, make political and charitable donations, and facilitate the purchase of luxury real estate, such as a penthouse in the Bahamas. (A spokesperson for Bankman-Fried did not immediately respond to a request for comment.) That the case revolves around such a complex financial mechanism as crypto is almost incidental; to the prosecution, this was simple fraud, fueled by deception.

Then, in language peppered with metaphors and strained wordplay, Cohen argued in his opening statement that his client acted in good faith trying to run FTX. “There was no theft,” Cohen insisted. Running a start-up, Cohen said, relying on a well-worn tech truism, is like flying a plane as you’re building it. That metaphor was key to the defense’s attempt to explain why Bankman-Fried and his team made such stunning management errors as failing to hire a chief risk officer.

The plane metaphor, which Cohen later repeated, was a bit forced, but it helped to conveniently elide Bankman-Fried’s potential responsibility. The plane was flying into storms while it was being built, his lawyer said; in other words, these were circumstances beyond the defendant’s control. Most of all, Bankman-Fried didn’t intend to steal, Cohen argued. “The defense’s opening statement focused a lot on SBF’s fundamentally good motives and character—as an innovator who made a mistake because the industry and culture are about moving fast and breaking things,” Yesha Yadav, an expert on financial regulation at Vanderbilt Law School, told me over email.

In their opening statements, neither side waded into the complexity of how crypto markets work. The world of crypto is confusing, and, indeed, Bankman-Fried benefited from the perception that he was uniquely qualified to crack it. When it served him, Bankman-Fried relied on his image as a generational genius, a visionary leader who could remake the world of finance. Now his defense is presenting a different narrative: Bankman-Fried might have been “a math nerd,” but he’s also just an overextended businessman who lost track of things as his company ballooned.

Over the next several weeks, the government will need to convince all 12 members of the jury that beyond a reasonable doubt, Bankman-Fried committed fraud. Whether Bankman-Fried will take the stand in his own defense is a big, open question here. In the past, Bankman-Fried has been his own most visible advocate. But in court, where gravity and propriety reign, how his renegade attitude will play—even with his new look—is a wild card.

Related:

Sam Bankman-Fried pushed one boundary too many. The cults of Sam Bankman-Fried

Today’s News

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Narges Mohammadi, an Iranian activist who is currently jailed in Tehran. Republican candidates for House speaker have pulled out from a planned forum on Fox News after calls to keep discussions internal. A glacial lake burst through a major hydroelectric dam in northeast India, killing at least 42 people.

Dispatches

The Books Briefing: Gal Beckerman discusses a new translation of The Iliad, an epic poem that his 10-year-old daughter adores. Up for Debate: Conor Friedersdorf asks readers what America will be like in 2050, and delves into “solarpunk.”

Explore all of our newsletters here.

Evening Read

Pierre Buttinon

What the Longest Study on Human Happiness Found Is the Key to a Good Life

By Robert Waldinger and Marc Schulz

Turn your mind for a moment to a friend or family member you cherish but don’t spend as much time with as you would like. This needn’t be your most significant relationship, just someone who makes you feel energized when you’re with them, and whom you’d like to see more regularly.

How often do you see that person? Every day? Once a month? Once a year? Do the math and project how many hours annually you spend with them. Write this number down and hang on to it …

Thinking about these numbers can help us put our own relationships in perspective. Try figuring out how much time you spend with a good friend or family member. We don’t have to spend every hour with our friends, and some relationships work because they’re exercised sparingly. But nearly all of us have people in our lives whom we’d like to see more.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

The Nobel winner whose writing speaks to everyone A robot’s nightmare is a burrito full of guac. Photos of the week: masked witness, right whale, stormy gorge

Culture Break

Universal

Read. Bottoms Up and the Devil Laughs, by Kerry Howley, is about the “deep state,” but it is so well written that our staff writer Olga Khazan would have read it even if it had been about anything else.

Watch. The Exorcist, William Friedkin’s 1973 film (streaming on Max), is one of the biggest movies ever made. Why are all of the attempts to sequelize it so baffling?

Play our daily crossword.

P.S.

FTX was, in some ways, an intensely personal affair: Bankman-Fried lived with several fellow executives, including his sometimes-girlfriend Ellison. His parents, with whom he lived while on house arrest, had ties to the business, and his brother’s pandemic-prevention nonprofit was the recipient of massive donations. As one of its exhibits on Wednesday, the prosecution showed the jury the now-infamous FTX 2022 Super Bowl ad starring Larry David. Apparently, Joseph Bankman, the father of the defendant, appears in the ad as a signer of the Declaration of Independence, shouting “yes!” after David asks whether “even the stupid ones” should be allowed to vote. After the video played in court, the government lawyer asked a witness to explain who Larry David was. At that point, Joseph Bankman cracked a brief smile, and then his face fell again.

— Lora

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.