Mark Lavie argues that Israel and the US have won real military achievements against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran—but have not yet translated those gains into lasting security. His opinion piece begins with a blunt Clausewitzian point: War is supposed to serve politics, not replace it. When diplomacy is treated as an afterthought, even the most impressive battlefield successes can become strategically hollow.
Lavie points to Israel’s long record of targeted killings, from Hamas leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi to Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. The operations may show extraordinary intelligence and military capability, he writes, but they have not destroyed the organizations behind the men. Hamas is trying to rebuild its authority in parts of Gaza, Hezbollah remains a factor, and Iran—despite devastation to its leadership and military assets—continues to pose demands, threaten the Strait of Hormuz, and project power through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The piece’s sharpest warning is historical. Lavie invokes the Vietnam War and the 1973 Paris Peace Accords to argue that military superiority does not guarantee political victory. The US had enormous firepower in Vietnam, yet Washington eventually settled for “peace with honor”—a deal that collapsed two years later when North Vietnam took Saigon.
His prescription is not pacifism. Lavie is clear that Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah deserved military blows. Khamenei, Nasrallah, and Sinwar, he writes, belonged at the top of any list of dangerous enemies. Gaza’s tunnels had to be destroyed. Iran had to be weakened. Hezbollah had to be “declawed.”
But the hammer has done what a hammer can do. Lavie calls for Israel and the US to declare victory, halt further strikes on Iran, pursue diplomacy, support Iran’s domestic opposition, repair ties with alienated allies, and work toward a postwar Gaza that can be rebuilt without Hamas tunnels beneath it. There is no instant fix, he warns, and more violence is likely. Read Lavie’s full piece for its bracing central argument: Military power can win battles, but diplomacy is what gives victory somewhere to land.