In recent days, the question has resurfaced again and again: What is victory, and does “total victory” even exist? In the Middle East, the outcome is tested the morning after the morning after. Only then does the extent of victory become clear, and how complete it truly is. In practice, it is possible to achieve significant operational gains, to severely damage the enemy and create deterrence. But the threat remains, and the conflict continues, in changing forms.
Victory is a cumulative process. It is measured by the ability to improve the situation over time, to pass the problem on to those who come after you in a less complex state. It is like a relay race, where each shift fulfills its duty to future generations. This was the case, for example, in the confrontation with Hezbollah. The organization accumulated a massive arsenal, high firepower capabilities, and Radwan Force fighters positioned along the border. In Operation Northern Arrows, Israel inflicted deep damage on the group’s infrastructure, created deterrence for an extended period, and improved the security situation along the front. This is the real test point, not a final decision or absolute defeat, because that does not exist. A terrorist organization will always retain some capabilities, and certainly the intent to harm us. The test is a change in reality.
Former Northern Command chief Maj. Gen. Ori Gordin handed over to his successor, Maj. Gen. Rafi Milo, a far more stable and deterred sector. Galilee Division commander Brig. Gen. Shay Klapper passed on to Brig. Gen. Yuval Gaz an improved operational reality. The same occurred at the tactical level among brigade commanders in the sector, Col. Omri Rosenkrantz and Col. Yuval Mazuz. This is what victory looks like in practice: a sequence of small and medium improvements that together create a significant outcome, even if the enemy still exists and retains capabilities.
The strategic meaning is clear. The side that dictates the pace, chooses the timing and maintains the initiative is the one managing the campaign. Israel demonstrated this as well in its operation on February 28 in Iran, striking deep and eliminating significant components of military and strategic capability. It is an important achievement within a broader campaign that is still ongoing. In the past, it was easier to identify victory through a single image, a moment that encapsulated the entire story and was etched into collective memory. Today, that is nearly impossible. Everything is filmed, everything is documented, the battlefield is dispersed and continuous. Instead of one decisive image, we get a sequence of partial, sometimes contradictory documentation. The result is difficulty in understanding the full picture, even when reality is improving.
To understand what has changed, one must return to the reference point. On the morning of October 7, Israel awoke to a severe security reality on multiple fronts. In the south, defenses collapsed, communities were overrun, civilians were massacred and abducted, and the state lost control for long hours over sovereign territory. In the north, Hezbollah stood with some 150,000 rockets and operational plans for infiltration and the capture of communities in the Galilee. At the same time, Iran was nearing nuclear threshold status and had established regional deterrence through a network of proxies. This was a dangerous picture, with deep gaps between our capabilities and our sense of security. It is quite clear that we suffered a military defeat.
After Operation Defensive Shield, terrorism did not disappear, but operational control was established, enabling the thwarting of attacks and the management of the threat over time. The area was not free of violence, but the situation was more stable
Against this picture, the current reality must be measured. Not against an ideal world without threats, but against a situation in which the enemy succeeds in surprising, infiltrating and operating deep inside Israeli territory. Recent history teaches the same principle. After Operation Defensive Shield, terrorism did not disappear, but operational control was established, enabling the prevention of attacks and the management of the threat over time. The territory was not clean, but the situation was more stable.
This is also the neighborhood in which we live. The motivation to eliminate the Jewish state will not disappear. It is rooted ideologically, religiously and politically, and it will remain. The task is to act consistently against capability, to strike means, infrastructure, command and control, and to maintain a continuous gap. This is daily work, not a one-time event. From this also derives the central lesson regarding Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. The campaign is continuous and requires sustained pressure that makes it difficult for the enemy to rebuild. A sequence of actions creates cumulative erosion and reduces its room for maneuver. If this is maintained over time, a chain of cumulative achievements is formed and superiority is built. It is not a single moment that sums everything up, but a process that produces real change. In the end, the test is simple: Will the next generation receive a safer reality than the one we inherited? If so, that is victory.
Those seeking “victory” in the form of a parade in Tehran or Beirut will not find it. And those who rush to conclude that the threat has vanished, in the spirit of “the land shall be quiet for 40 years,” and believe resources can be shifted from security to education, are likely to be mistaken
Over the past two years, there has also been a profound shift in the concept of security. For years, victory was measured mainly by the criterion of how long quiet was maintained between rounds. October 7 undermined that assumption. Quiet can be misleading. At times, it may rest on flawed assumptions about the enemy’s intentions and capabilities. A different concept is now emerging, one that defines victory as the ability and willingness to remove threats as they emerge, before they translate into surprise on the ground. It is an approach that prioritizes sustained initiative over waiting for temporary calm.
Those looking for “victory” in the form of a parade in Tehran or Beirut will not get it. Those who rush to conclude that the threat has disappeared, in the spirit of “the land shall be quiet for 40 years,” and believe resources can be shifted from security to education, are likely to be disappointed. The reality is more complex. The meaning of victory is not the end of the threat, but a change in its form, a transition from a period of high-intensity conflict to an ongoing reality of friction, recovery and attempts to rebuild power.
It is an important achievement, but one that demands sobriety. There will be no final moment, only the opening of a new chapter that requires sustained vigilance alongside the careful management of national resources by leadership that understands its responsibility both for the near disaster that almost occurred, and for a two-thousand-year-old hope.