True Victory

I just finished listening to a talk that described Israel’s victory in 1948 as “partially victorious.” The speaker highlighted that while the fledgling state survived the invasion by five Arab armies, it lost vital territories – the Old City of Jerusalem, the Etzion Bloc, and other lands allocated under the UN partition plan – and endured heartbreaking losses, with a full one percent of the population killed. In that moment of existential peril, mere survival was hailed as victory. Holding on against annihilation defined success.

That threshold is no longer acceptable.

Today, Israel confronts a persistent, multi-front threat: Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Iranian regime that arms, funds, trains, and directs them all. These adversaries are not deterred by borders, armistices, or calibrated responses. Partial measures – degrading missile stockpiles, disrupting supply lines, or striking select facilities – offer only temporary relief. Iran reconstitutes, adapts, and escalates when it perceives weakness. We’ve witnessed this cycle: targeted operations delay Iran’s nuclear progress and proxy attacks, but the regime’s core capability and intent remain intact.

Having spent the last twenty years in missile defense, I know the strengths and stark limits of defense. Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow, and now Iron Beam intercept threats with remarkable success, saving lives and preserving operational freedom. But defense does not impose will on the enemy. It manages risk; it does not eliminate it. October 7 exposed the danger of over-reliance on barriers and interceptors: no shield, however advanced, replaces decisive action to dismantle the enemy’s ability to strike.

Defeating Iran means more than degrading its arsenal. It requires breaking its capacity to project power through missiles, drones, nuclear ambitions, and proxies – permanently. This entails systematic destruction of its ballistic missile production, launch infrastructure, air defenses, and command networks. It means severing the lifelines to Hamas, Hezbollah remnants, and the Houthis, ensuring they cannot be resupplied or reconstituted. Direct operations to neutralize key military assets and leadership elements that sustain aggression are essential. Anything short leaves the regime able to rebuild, rearm, and renew assaults, turning “victory” into prolonged vulnerability.

The goal is not regime change per se, but the functional defeat of the regime’s war-making machine: rendering it incapable of harming Israel now or in the foreseeable future. History confirms that lasting peace follows when enemies conclude destruction is futile. Egypt and Jordan accepted this after decisive confrontations. Iran must reach the same conclusion through overwhelming military imposition.

In 1948, “victory” meant surviving long enough to be tomorrow’s problem; in 2026, that definition is obsolete. The American–Israeli alliance is the only strategic architecture in the region with the power to make Tehran choose between two outcomes: either an unmistakable, crushing penalty for crossing the nuclear threshold, or a negotiated off-ramp that preserves the regime while permanently foreclosing its path to the bomb. The seductive “not on my watch” approach espoused by the Obama Administration with managed delay, partial enforcement, and incremental relief, does not solve the problem; it simply schedules it for the next administration, the next crisis, the next war.

A nuclear Iran is not merely Israel’s nightmare; it is a direct threat to core American security interests: proliferation cascades, regional coercion, and a durable shield behind which Iran’s proxies can escalate with impunity. The United States cannot live with that reality, and neither can Israel. “Victory” must mean preventing it, not surviving it.

The price will undoubtedly be high: international backlash, economic costs, and casualties. Yet unfinished conflicts breed repetition. Abraham Accords partners and others in the region grasp Iran’s danger; many would benefit from its strategic neutering. Domestically, Israel must transcend divisions because long-term security demands national unity.

In 1948, survival against all odds built the state. Today, survival under constant shadow threats is insufficient. We must shift from endurance to decisive defeat of Iran and its proxies. Only by imposing unbreakable security can Israel secure a future where existential danger ends, not merely pauses.

Good things,

Ari Sacher