What the Israeli strikes on Iran teach U.S. leaders about victory

Israel did not aim to buy time. It aimed to shift the regional balance.

By Eric Navarro, Middle East Forum

Israel’s precision strikes on Iranian military infrastructure sent shockwaves through Tehran—and delivered a message to Washington that too many U.S. policymakers and uniformed leaders forgot: Wars are not won with caution, ambiguity, or half-measures.

Clarity of objective, brilliance in execution, and the will to finish the fight wins wars.

The operation over Iran is not simply responding to provocation—it is executing a clinic in strategic warfare. Israeli actions demonstrate how to apply force in service of a clearly defined objective.

No mission creep. No mixed messaging. No performative diplomacy trailing behind the tailpipe of a fighter jet. Just unapologetic, purpose-driven action.

War is a laboratory. Existential threats drive innovation. Strategy and doctrine can evolve in real time. Thus, even as the war between Israel and Iran continues to unfold, U.S. policymakers and military leaders can already learn distinct lessons for future geopolitical combat.

The first lesson: Strategy must shape operations. Israel’s strikes fit into a deliberate strategic framework.

Leaders selected targets, timed the operation, and shaped public messaging to achieve clear outcomes: Destroy Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon and degrade the regime’s ability to attack Israel or project power and intimidate its neighbors.

Israel did not aim to buy time. It aimed to shift the regional balance.

Compare this with two decades of U.S. campaigns, where tactical brilliance often met strategic drift. American forces cleared territory, eliminated targets, but never had a consensus in policy circles about what should come next.

That approach must end. U.S. leaders must start by defining victory.

The second lesson for U.S. leaders is that wars test strength and, more critically, will. Israel showed both. The U.S. must rediscover its own.

Adversaries—Tehran, Moscow, Beijing—do not question American military capability; they question American resolve. They observe U.S. self-deterrence, deliberation, and political equivocation.

Iran funds militias. China builds islands. Russia launches invasions. All expect Washington to respond with statements and sanctions.

Israel’s message sounded louder: Cross a red line, and your assets burn. The United States must deliver that same message. Deterrence rests on consequences, not rhetoric.

Lesson three is that tactical excellence is not enough. Tactical skill saturates the U.S. military. Special operations dismantle networks. The Navy controls the global seas. The Air Force dominates the sky.

But without the political will to pursue strategic victory, even elite capability is squandered.

Israel struck not to make a point, but to impose costs so painful that Iran must reassess its strategy. That is how to win. Future U.S. operations must follow suit.

In Yemen, Iraq, or Lebanon, American strikes must not just punish but permanently dismantle threats.

Bombing the Houthis should not deter the Houthis; it should eradicate them and by so doing, deter future enemies that might interfere with international shipping.

The final lesson is most critical, especially in the modern information environment. True victory often means one thing: killing the enemy. This truth seems to offend modern sensibilities.

The West has lost the language of war. It speaks in euphemisms to hide uncomfortable realities. This has manifested throughout the Global War on Terror—a focus on anodyne videos of missile strikes or aircraft taking off from a carrier.

However, at the heart of winning a war, one thing remains unchanged: Victory requires eliminating the enemy. When adversaries seek their victim’s destruction—as Iran’s supreme leader seeks Israel’s—managing threats no longer suffices. Removal becomes necessary.

Israel’s targets included infrastructure and individuals—Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders, weapons engineers, logistics personnel. Their removal formed part of the plan. Some enemies do not reform. They must vanish.

Washington must again embrace this principle. Counterterrorism is not outreach. Great power competition is not academic. In war, nations win or lose. When facing strategic threats like Iran, Americans must commit to winning.

Leaders must articulate unambiguous strategic goals. Planners must align operations with those goals. And commanders must define victory—not as managing threats, but as erasing them.

This does not always require kinetic means. Strategic victory comes through the successful application of all instruments of power. But when non-kinetic means fail and leaders decide to strike, they must strike with purpose and forethought.

Israel set the example. The United States must now lead—from beside, not behind.