In light of the military achievements and the air superiority demonstrated by the US and Israeli air forces, a question is increasingly being asked: When will the war end? Perhaps this is not the most important question. Rather than focusing only on the military and strategic dimension, a deeper question should be asked: How will we know that the war has truly ended?
Since ancient times, wars were conducted in a relatively orderly way, and it was generally clear to both sides who had won. Wars were decided through ground invasions, and victory belonged to the side that managed to capture territory and raise its flag in the heart of the enemy's capital. For centuries, a simple concept prevailed: the winner was the side that raised the flag.
In recent decades, however, the nature of warfare has changed. Today wars are fought with fighter jets, advanced technological systems, electronic capabilities and even cyberattacks. The battlefield is changing before our eyes. It has not yet been proven that a war can be won without a ground invasion and the physical capture of territory, but we are in the midst of a historical process whose conclusions may still be premature.
In the current war, both Israel and the US have announced that there will be no ground invasion, and the campaign is being conducted mainly from the air. Significant successes were recorded in the very first days: strikes against senior leadership figures, government infrastructure and military bases, and the achievement of air superiority. Yet despite these accomplishments, Israel continues to face daily missile attacks.
Even in a war that does not involve the occupation of territory, a moment eventually arrives when one side must declare surrender or signal a willingness to reach an arrangement. But at this point another complex and sometimes elusive factor enters the equation: the "order executors," the broad chain of command made up of thousands of officers and soldiers operating on the ground. History shows that they sometimes continue acting even after the political leadership has already made a different decision.
For example, in 1944 Adolf Eichmann continued accelerating the destruction of Hungarian Jewry even when Nazi Germany was clearly facing defeat. From his perspective, as the head of the implementation apparatus, halting the extermination was not an option even when the military reality had already decided the war.
When Iran is examined through this lens, the problem becomes clearer. Iran's territory is dozens of times larger than Israel's. For decades the Iranian regime has conducted intensive propaganda against Israel and cultivated an ideology calling for its destruction. In such a reality, even if Iran's leadership concludes that its chances of victory are slim and seeks an agreement with the US, there is no certainty that military forces on the ground will immediately stop operating. In a situation where communications, the internet or the chain of command are damaged, local officers could continue launching missiles.
This scenario is not imaginary but a real possibility that must be taken into account. The real question, therefore, is not only when the war will end, but what the moment will look like when we know that it has truly ended.
In the era of technological warfare, a political declaration by leaders that fighting has ended does not necessarily tell the whole story. The end is determined at the moment when the last soldier stops pulling the trigger.
