The End of Nasrallah, The Beginning of?
How Eliminating Hezbollah's Leadership Can Secure Peace in the Middle East
There are some, especially in the so-called “peace” camp (that are in fact pro-war, whether they know it or not), who argue, “Killing (terrorist) leaders like Nasrallah won’t bring us security or peace. Israel has done it before and nothing has changed.” Some will say, “An even more radical leader will emerge and take his place. It just perpetuates the cycle of violence,” or “Security and peace come from agreements not assassinations.” The most disconnected from reality will argue, “Peace will come when we end the (so-called) ‘occupation.’”
This argument is not just incredibly naive—it’s dangerous. Here’s why eliminating terrorist leaders like Nasrallah is critical to achieving real security and why the “peace” camp’s calls for diplomacy and ceasefires only perpetuate the violence they claim to oppose:
Leadership Isn’t Easily Replaceable
Terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah do not have an endless supply of leaders with the skill, experience and connections to orchestrate their highly complex operations. Nasrallah, Sinwar and other top commanders have decades of expertise and established foreign alliances that are not easily replicated. This isn’t a corporate organization where leadership is interchangeable—decapitating the leadership throws the entire system into disarray, significantly hindering their ability to plan and execute operations. These leaders are the brains behind the operations, coordinating attacks, strategy and propaganda. They are indispensable to their organization’s survival. Without them, it is far more difficult to maintain cohesion, strategic direction and the complex logistics required for large-scale operations. Killing Nasrallah, Sinwar or Deif isn’t just about removing a public face, it’s about eliminating the irreplaceable architects of terror.
Not only that, but a leader like Nasrallah was far more than a political or military figure. He was a symbol of “Islamic resistance” and a spiritual leader in the eyes of his cult followers. He cultivated an image that transcended traditional leadership and was seen as the embodiment of their divine struggle against Israel and the West. His speeches were infused with religious rhetoric, invoking Islamic history, martyrdom and the concept of jihad. For many, he represented a holy figure who was not just leading a political cause but engaging in a sacred battle. Over the years, Nasrallah had survived various Israeli assassination attempts, which only enhanced his status as an almost untouchable, mythic figure believed to be protected by Allah. His elimination shattered the myth of invincibility and sent a very clear and powerful message: no one that wages war against the Jewish nation is safe. With the organization’s leadership targeted and killed in such a swift and precise manner, operatives on the ground will lose confidence in their mission and their safety. It also weakens recruitment, as new recruits realize the promises of glory often end in death or capture. This may truly be the beginning of the end of Hezbollah.
2. Operational Chaos
When top leaders are killed, terrorist organizations face major internal disruptions. Communication lines are severed, trust between factions erodes and succession struggles creates significant instability. This organizational confusion impedes their ability to launch attacks and undermines the confidence of their operatives on the ground. For decades, Hezbollah was viewed as Israel’s most formidable adversary, with 150,000+ rockets pointed directly at Israeli civilians from their northern border. For the last 11 months, the Islamic Republic’s “Axis of Resistance” used Hezbollah’s perceived power to pressure Israel into capitulating to Hamas’ demands in a ceasefire deal or risk a full-blown, devastating war. In a humiliating defeat, the entire leadership of Hezbollah was eliminated in only 9 days, without a single Israeli soldier on the ground, drastically shifting the pressure from Israel onto Sinwar. For anyone who cares about securing the release of the 101 hostages without providing Hamas the opportunity to kidnap more in the near future (which should be all good, wise people), these eliminations are of paramount importance.
3. The Myth of Occupation
One of the most persistent myths surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that the so-called "occupation" is the root cause of terrorism and violence. However, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah were founded on a shared ideology aimed at the total destruction of Israel, not the reclamation of specific territories. For these groups, the entire land of Israel, from the river to the sea, is deemed “occupied” because in their twisted worldview, there is no place in the Arab-conquered Middle East where lowly Jews could have power or freedom, even if its in the land that they have called their home for 4000 years. The reality is that there is no occupation. Israel’s military presence in Gaza and Judea and Samaria (“West Bank”) result from wars initiated by the Arabs in 1948 and 1967, which they lost. Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005, while Judea and Samaria is considered “disputed territory,” according to international law, not occupied, with its status pending negotiations, as Israel holds valid historical, legal and security claims to the land.
Even after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, which many viewed as fulfilling Palestinian aspirations for “freedom,” Hamas was elected to govern and quickly turned the territory into a launchpad for terrorist attacks against Israel. “Palestinian liberation” is the dogwhistle in English for destroying Israel, a sentiment that has been at the center of the Palestinian conscience since the beginning. The security fences along the borders of Gaza and in Judea and Samaria, often cited as evidence of “apartheid” or “occupation,” were constructed in 2002 during the Second Intifada—a time when Palestinians killed over 1,000 Israelis in suicide bombings and terror attacks and in 2006 after Hamas took control of Gaza. In essence, the security barriers and checkpoints are a response to radical Islamic terrorism, not a provocation of it.
The language and notion of “occupation” serve as a red herring to distract from the real source of the problem and as a political tool to delegitimize Jewish rights to live anywhere in the Land of Israel. According to international law, there has never been a Palestinian state from which land could be “occupied,” and historically, the Jewish people are the only group to have ever held sovereignty in the region. History has proven that this conflict is not about borders, land or policies. It is an existential struggle driven by a radical ideology that seeks to annihilate Jews and the world’s only Jewish state. For those who speak Arabic or who have listened to the translated speeches made from the terrorist leaders themselves over the years, this is old news.
4. Diplomacy, Concessions and Ceasefires Won’t Change Terrorist Goals
There is a long history of failed diplomacy with terrorist groups, where concessions only led to further aggression. Diplomatic efforts and concessions such as the Oslo Accords in the 1990s and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 did not bring peace. Instead, they emboldened terrorist organizations, providing them with more territory and resources to launch barbaric assaults on civilians. Hamas, Hezbollah and others have repeatedly shown that they view diplomacy as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to strengthen themselves. There is no such thing as diplomacy with terrorists. Terrorism thrives on the illusion that their violence stems from legitimate, political grievances that can be negotiated instead of ideological ones that cannot. History has also proven that ceasefires and temporary truces often benefit the terrorist groups who use them to regroup, rearm and recover. Calls for diplomacy and ceasefires, though sometimes well-intentioned (but are often not), play directly into the hands of terrorists. A ceasefire is seen as a tactical military strategy that allows these serial killers to: commit unspeakable atrocities as they did on and since October 7, benefit from a shift in public opinion by way of propaganda framing themselves as victims, embezzle the billions in international aid from sympathetic Westerners and pro-Islamist Arabs and allow them to survive so that they can coordinate the next assault with more support than ever before.
Let’s not forget that there was a ceasefire with Hamas on October 6 and with Hezbollah in 2006 under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which called for the complete disarmament of Hezbollah and the expansion of UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) to support the Lebanese army in securing southern Lebanon and removing Hezbollah entirely. What happened? Hezbollah emerged from this “diplomatic solution” far more powerful, with greater military capabilities and political influence in Lebanon. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the region were killed due to the same failed strategy today’s “peace” camp are trying to replicate. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. We must allow Israel to do something differently this time, not in opposition to peace but for the sake of it.
5. Israel’s Past Failures to Finish the Job
In previous conflicts, Israel has been pressured to halt military operations before the job was fully done, often by the United Nations and Western governments who do not grasp the full scope of the terrorist threat or who serve the interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran in achieving regional domination. This has allowed groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to come back stronger, more emboldened and with better arsenals. In 2006, for example, Hezbollah was significantly weakened but was able to rebuild due to a premature ceasefire. Today, the world is witnessing the consequences of Israel not decisively finishing the job. Every previous cycle of violence—whether with Hezbollah in the north or Hamas in the south—can be traced back to the failure to decapitate the leadership and fully dismantle the organizational infrastructure. Every single time these terrorist groups waged war against Israel, they did so knowing full well that the international community would save them on the basis of “humanitarian” concerns for the populations they use as human shields. The UN, human rights organizations and many Western government leaders have become witting and unwitting partners to terrorists in their insidious death machine. This time, Israel must be allowed to finish the job thoroughly and comprehensively. The good news is that with the entire Hezbollah leadership wiped out, they are now closer to that goal than they ever were before. In fact, as you read this, Israeli soldiers have already begun ground raids in southern Lebanon to destroy Hezbollah infrastructure.
6. Iran’s Exposure and Hostage Negotiations
Hezbollah and Hamas function as critical extensions of the Iranian regime, enabling Iran to wage a proxy war against Israel without direct involvement or the accompanying risks. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the major source of regional destabilization, fueling conflicts across the Middle East through its support of armed militias and extremist groups. By backing Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq, Assad’s regime in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza and Judea and Samaria, Iran spreads its influence, undermining regional governments and intensifying sectarian tensions. This strategy allows Iran to project power and yield influence while avoiding direct military engagement that could provoke severe retaliation.
As the leadership of their proxies crumbles and their capabilities are degraded, Iran finds itself increasingly vulnerable. Without strong proxy forces like Hezbollah and Hamas to shield its interests, the Iranian regime is more exposed on the global stage, weakening its negotiating position, particularly in matters like the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza.
What we know is that Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, seeks to avoid direct conflict with Israel, as it could bring about devastating consequences for Iran itself including the toppling of his regime altogether. This creates a ripple effect down the chain of command: Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, who relies on Iranian and Hezbollah support for his own survival, will feel increasingly insecure as that support diminishes. With Hezbollah eventually destroyed, Hamas isolated and Iran unwilling to risk a direct confrontation, the pressure on Sinwar to release the hostages grows exponentially. Khamenei himself might even push for their release if it helps preserve his regime from further escalation. At this point, with so many of their top leaders already eliminated, the stakes for survival are higher than ever.
7. Opportunity for Lebanon
The destruction of Hezbollah’s leadership also presents a significant opportunity for the Lebanese people, government and army to reclaim their country from the grip of a terrorist organization that has caused immense suffering and instability to millions of their own people for too long. If Hezbollah were to be dismantled, Lebanon would have a transformative opportunity to redefine its political future and reclaim its sovereignty. For decades, the international community has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of Lebanon as it became hijacked by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ironically, it is Israel—historically framed as an enemy to Lebanon—who will likely be the one to help liberate the Lebanese and pave a new path forward for them. For decades, Hezbollah has provoked, threatened and terrorized not only Israelis and Lebanese but also Syrians, Iranians and Kurds. The chance for Lebanon to forge a new path toward prosperity and peace with Israel for the betterment of the world is now and may not come again.