A Hebrew opinion piece argues that Israel cannot settle for military gains or stronger defenses alone in its confrontation with Iran. Drawing on the end of World War I, it says a victory that stops short of decisive defeat can plant the seeds of the next war.
The article recalls the armistice signed on November 11, 1918, in the Compiègne Forest in France, which ended World War I but did not fully convince Germans they had been crushed. It cites historian David Reynolds, who said that if the Allies had won outright in 1919, the peace would have been signed in Potsdam after a victory parade in Berlin, not in Versailles. It also notes that U.S. General John Pershing opposed ending the war before Germany’s unconditional surrender, warning that an early ceasefire would let the German army recover, a fear later proved correct.
France, traumatized by the war, responded by building the Maginot Line, while Germany rebuilt its strength. The writer says this created a fatal imbalance, one side building a wall to avoid fighting, the other building an army to take revenge. In June 1940, when Germany invaded France, Hitler had the Compiègne railcar brought back and forced France to sign its surrender in it, turning the symbol of 1918 against the French.
The article says Israel now faces a similar choice as fighting against the Iranian axis may be ending. It praises Israel’s operational and technological achievements and says the country has shown it will not live under an “ring of fire,” but warns against leaving the war with only another layer of defense and a mindset of “just not another round.” That, it argues, would be a new Maginot Line. The writer says the war will not truly end with an agreement, but only when Tehran loses confidence in its ability to absorb attacks, survive, and return, and concludes that the only way to do that is to topple the Iranian regime, “with Trump or without him.”
