Crushing the enemies’ spirit with a limited loss of life.
With each return of hostages, Hamas seeks to inflict deep psychological trauma, reminding Israel and the world that it will continue to control Gaza and renew attacks for years to come. While condemning the charade and the murder of Ariel and Kfir Bibas (may their memory be a blessing), the Netanyahu government has also stated it is committed to completing the second phase of the hostage release-ceasefire deal, which would include the IDF’s withdrawal from Gaza and the release of all remaining hostages.
What is left unspoken is this: Unlike previous conflicts where limited engagement and periodic concessions led to endless cycles of violence, the future will revolve around two intertwined objectives: eliminating Hamas and neutralizing Iran as a long-term threat to Israel.
To achieve these goals, Israel will need to carry out three sieges. The first will be a siege of Gaza. This is not an act of reckless destruction but a calculated encirclement designed to break Hamas without the need for full-scale occupation. The model here is Sherman’s March to the Sea—not indiscriminate slaughter, but a focused campaign to break the enemy’s will without unnecessary loss of life. As General Sherman outlined, the goal is to convince the enemy that resistance is futile, their government cannot protect them, and that surrender is the only viable path to survival.
Similarly, an Israeli siege will systematically cut Gaza off from food, energy and supplies, isolating Hamas and rendering it unable to govern. This will not require mass casualties or protracted urban warfare; it will demand the kind of iron patience that has defined successful sieges throughout history. As Major General (ret.) Giora Eiland, former head of Israel’s National Security Council, noted, “Within hours, Israel could destroy Gaza’s water facilities. We can be patient, just like sieges of the past, which lasted weeks, months, and even years, until the other side cannot function.” Once civilians evacuate and only Hamas remains, with no access to food or water, the group will be left with two choices: surrender or destruction. Just as Arafat was forced to leave Beirut after an Israeli siege, Hamas will either capitulate or be eliminated.
Gazans will be given a clear choice: stay and starve or leave. Economic assistance must be forbidden, and those who choose to remain should be fully informed that they will face the consequences of their decision. If Egypt or others choose to ignore their plight, that will be their responsibility.
This siege of Gaza will likely be followed by or preceded by the second siege: the elimination of Iran’s nuclear and oil infrastructure. The moment to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions is now. Tehran’s breakout time to a bomb is down to a matter of weeks, and with no new atomic deal in sight, Hamas and Hezbollah are too distracted to retaliate. Iran itself is practically inviting action; this is likely the last opportunity to prevent the regime from crossing the nuclear threshold.
For over a decade, the idea of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has been debated. Israel has acted decisively in the past, with successful strikes against Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. Every U.S. president since George W. Bush has declared that all options are on the table to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and the U.S. has developed new capabilities, such as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, designed to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear sites.
Critics may still argue that diplomacy is the ideal solution, but the reality is grim. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is irrelevant now. The Biden administration’s attempts to revive the deal have failed, and Iran continues to violate its provisions. After years of fruitless negotiations, a new agreement is simply impossible. Without decisive action, Iran will inevitably become a nuclear power.
Bombing Iranian oil facilities, like a siege, aims to strangle an enemy’s vital resources, forcing it to capitulate or negotiate under pressure. Just as a siege cuts off food, water and reinforcements, attacking Iran’s oil infrastructure cuts off a core resource crucial to its economy and military capability. Iran relies heavily on oil exports, which fund not only its domestic economy but also its regional activities, including funding Hamas, Hezbollah and other militant proxies. By crippling this revenue stream, Israel can weaken Iran’s ability to sustain its military and regional ambitions, ultimately bringing down the regime.
Israel should also work with global Zionist supporters to impose a third siege—this one aimed at neutralizing the pro-Hamas and anti-Zionist advocacy network in the U.S. and Europe, including anti-Zionist Jews like Peter Beinart. Just as Sherman effectively cut off the Confederacy’s support from foreign sympathizers, Israel must prevent foreign aid to Gaza while also severing the intellectual supply lines of antisemitic narratives.
This means pressuring governments to cut off financial and logistical support for organizations like UNRWA and NGOs that promote violence against Israel’s right to exist. Additionally, Israel should collaborate with the Trump administration to deport terrorist sympathizers and prosecute those using academia, media and law to further antisemitism.
The world will condemn Israel’s actions, as it always does. But as Sherman warned, war is cruelty, and it cannot be refined. Those who bring war upon their people must face the consequences. Israel has the ability and resolve to finish what Hamas started.
These three sieges are coming. When the dust settles, Gaza will be a different place, and Hamas and the Iranian threat will be gone. Hamas’ hostage-taking is an attempt to control the narrative, but its strategy is failing. Israel is playing the long game—not merely eliminating terrorists but dismantling the entire infrastructure that sustains them: economic, logistical and ideological.
The chessboard is set. Israel has already proven its capabilities. Hezbollah has been defanged, Iran’s nuclear sites are vulnerable, and Hamas is running out of places to hide. The Trump administration has adopted a policy that will ensure this situation is permanent, targeting those who hijack academia, government and media to undermine the Jewish state.
This is not the beginning of another cyclical war that ends in a ceasefire and negotiation. Hamas’ days are numbered. Israel’s military campaign has already dismantled Gaza’s terrorist infrastructure and neutralized Hezbollah while exposing Iran’s strategic vulnerabilities.
For decades, Israel used military force to secure peace through compromise. Those days are over. Israel will pursue total victory through these sieges because the actions of its enemies leave no other option. Sherman wrote to Unionist James Guthrie: “War is the remedy our enemies have chosen. Other simple remedies were within their choice. You know it, and they know it, but they wanted war, and I say let us give them all they want; not a word of argument, not a sign of let-up, no cave-in till we are whipped or they are.”
There is no inconsistency between the siege strategy and the striving for justice. In a 1962 lecture, political philosopher Leo Strauss explained that the root of injustice lies not in God but in human sin. He argued that the Jewish people are the living witness to this absence of redemption. The Torah regards Israel’s establishment as a political act necessary to create a morally ordered “sacred space” that would displace chaos and evil.
Zionism has often sought to escape this fate, but the events of October 7th have made it clear: Israel’s enemies have left it no choice. The “three siege solution” was forced upon Israel. When they are completed, in months or years, the world will know that the Jewish state and its steadfast supporters stood together to protect the Jewish homeland and the values of freedom, justice, and peace for all. The world will know that Israel has the will and the ability to secure its future. God’s blessings will follow those who fight with courage alongside Israel for what is just and true.
