Hamas will not disappear overnight, but the territory in Gaza can be stabilized to secure a victory over Iran.
There was something almost absurd, if not outright surreal, about the scene in Israel’s Supreme Court on Tuesday. As the justices sat to deliberate whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could appoint a new head of the Shin Bet, it was hard to reconcile this with what had transpired just a few days earlier: an unprecedented Israeli attack on Iran, involving hundreds of warplanes, that struck deep into the regime’s nuclear infrastructure.
Yes, courtroom disruptions are unacceptable, and those who attacked the proceedings should face consequences. However, the absurdity lies in the fact that the court was even holding such a hearing. Are we truly in a place where the prime minister of Israel has the authority to take the nation to war but not to appoint the head of one of its most critical intelligence agencies?
Let’s break that down: Netanyahu can order the IDF to launch one of the most daring and consequential operations in the country’s history – penetrating Iranian airspace, crippling nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan – yet a panel of justices is now tasked with determining whether he is fit to select a Shin Bet chief.
THERE ARE those who might argue that if he can’t be trusted with one, he shouldn’t be trusted with the other. But that view is not only unrealistic, it ignores the real unity that emerged across Israel’s political spectrum when it came to confronting Iran’s nuclear threat.
What stood out during the operation was the remarkable display of political alignment – opposition leaders, for the first time in years, stood side-by-side with Netanyahu, backing the decision to strike Iran.
This was not political theater.
It was the result of a shared understanding that the Islamic Republic’s march toward a bomb represented a red line for the entire Israeli leadership.
Netanyahu heads to Washington
This context makes Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this coming week even more critical. While much attention has been focused on the ceasefire proposal advanced by US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff – one that could finally bring an end to the war in Gaza – the deeper, longer-term challenge remains Iran.
The discussions with President Donald Trump are not just about ending the current conflict with Hamas. They are about setting the terms for what comes next: whether the Iran-Israel clash that dominated global headlines was a one-off strike or merely the first round in a longer, more drawn-out confrontation.
Because in Jerusalem, despite the success of the operation, there is no illusion.
Israeli intelligence officials acknowledge openly that Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle has been set back by years, but they also concede that the regime’s ambition to obtain nuclear weapons is stronger than ever.
Some officials have even speculated that, were they in the shoes of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, they would draw a simple lesson from the recent strikes – the only true guarantee for the survival of the regime is a nuclear weapon.
This is why the war with Iran is not over. It is still just in the beginning.
The alliance with Trump, which proved decisive in last month’s strikes, must now evolve. The campaign that unfolded – first led by Israel and then joined by the US – was historic and even biblical in its proportions. But it is not permanent.
With three and a half years ahead of a Trump presidency, Israel must do everything possible to preserve the extraordinary coordination and trust that has been cultivated. That relationship is not just a diplomatic asset. It is a strategic necessity.
This also explains Netanyahu’s controversial but correct decision last week to call back Israeli planes that had been scrambled to strike Iran after it had violated the ceasefire. Was Israel justified in retaliating?
Absolutely. But was it worth jeopardizing the fragile but crucial alliance with Washington, one that took years to build and now enables Israel to operate with near-total freedom over Iranian skies? No. The choice to hold fire was not one of weakness. It was one of strategic vision.
That strategic vision is now shaping Israel’s next steps.
The government is currently exploring a framework that closely resembles the so-called “war between wars” campaign – m’aracha bein ha-milhamot (acronym MABAM) in Hebrew – that Israel ran in Syria for over a decade. MABAM was a calibrated campaign of airstrikes aimed at preventing Iran’s entrenchment and weapons transfers to Hezbollah – conducted below the threshold of full-scale war. It was successful in large part because of the chaos of the Syrian civil war and the limited risk of retaliation. But Iran is not Syria.
Any application of the MABAM model to Iran would come with the understanding that retaliation is inevitable. For that reason, Israel will likely only act in Iran when it assesses that the risk of waiting is too much and when a red line is crossed or a new threat emerges.
WHICH BRINGS us to Gaza.
If Iran is the strategic threat, Gaza remains the emotional and political wound.
Nearly two years after the October 7 massacre, Israeli hostages still languish in Hamas captivity. The military campaign in the Gaza Strip has taken its toll – not just on Hamas, but on Israel as well. Since June 21, IDF soldiers have been killed. And the question many Israelis are now asking is: for what?
At this point, it is obvious that a deal will be required to end the war. So why do more soldiers need to die in the meantime? The argument heard in defense circles is that pressure must be maintained on Hamas, and that any slackening could jeopardize the deal. That may be true. But try explaining that to the families of the fallen. Try telling them that their sons and brothers died not for a military objective, but to maintain “leverage.”
None of this is to say that the war in Gaza was unjustified. Far from it. It was about our survival. But it has reached a point now when its purpose has been obscured. The political slogan of “total victory” was always fake, and there was never a scenario in which Israel could, realistically, kill or capture every Hamas fighter, seize every Kalashnikov, and turn Gaza into a peaceful, demilitarized zone.
The only way to have attempted that would have been to conquer the entire Strip, take control of its governance, and become responsible for its electricity, hospitals, sewage, and schools. No one was ever prepared for that.
So, the time has come to bring this war to a close. Yes, when the ceasefire is reached and the hostages are returned, we will see scenes that will be hard to swallow: tens of thousands of Palestinians celebrating in Gaza’s streets, who will wave Hamas flags, firing into the air in a grotesque display of defiance.
Members of Israel’s far Right government will call it a defeat. They will accuse the leadership of surrender. Prepare for that. But ignore it.
Because what matters is not the flags in Gaza, but the strategy in Jerusalem.
Israel must now begin laying the groundwork for a new reality in Gaza – one that mirrors the model in Lebanon. Hezbollah still exists, but the government in Beirut today is more aligned with the West and more committed to containing Hezbollah’s reach. The threat remains, but it is managed.
A similar construct can be built in Gaza. Hamas will not disappear overnight, but the territory can be stabilized. A new governing entity can be put in place, and the IDF can retain freedom of action, just as it does in the North.
But none of this can happen if Israel remains bogged down in an indefinite war that no longer serves its interests. The longer the fighting drags on, the more it distracts from the bigger picture: Iran – and the growing need to ensure that the Islamic Republic is permanently denied a path to the bomb.
WE ARE at an inflection point. The success against Iran was real. The alliance with the US is unprecedented. The military has proven its capabilities. The hostages will hopefully now return home.
Now is the moment to pivot – from endless war to strategic clarity. Because the next round is never too far away, and Israel needs to be ready.