After the 12‑day war, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran, Ali Khamenei, emerged to declare victory over Israel and America. He did so after the skies over Iran had been laid bare by Israeli air force strikes, and after his country had endured harsh Israeli attacks that killed dozens of Islamic Republic leaders, both military figures and nuclear scientists, and destroyed numerous facilities.

Before Khamenei, Hezbollah’s secretary‑general, Naim Qassem, had already come forward, following his party’s crushing defeat in Israel’s most recent war on Lebanon, to declare victory. In every speech, he repeats this proclamation of triumph, evoking the phrase that angels are fighting alongside Hezbollah.

However, the insistence on declaring victory is more than mere obstinacy or an attempt to maintain authority over a mourning public; its strongest impetus lies in the religious roots that draw on the unseen (ghayb) to link the notion of truth (al‑haqq) with triumph. Admitting defeat would mean denying possession of truth. It’s as if truth can never be defeated, and the defeated side is by definition the one devoid of truth.

Thus, constantly tying victory to truth is derived from a religious culture that promises believers victory, and defeat of “God’s enemies,” with the help of angels. These ideas originally arose from humankind’s search for justice.

Hezbollah’s official slogan, “Verily, the party of Allah are they who shall prosper,” drawn from the Qur’an, embodies the refusal to acknowledge loss. Admitting defeat would be tantamount to refuting the slogan itself, undermining the emotional mobilization of its base. If one admits defeat, one is denying the slogan, which paralyzes the party’s rhetorical and mobilizing power. Similarly, the verse “O you who believe! If you help Allah, He will help you and plant your feet firmly” means that anyone who “helps Allah” is assured of victory; otherwise, that person evidently hasn’t supported Allah—his defeat is proof.

Hence, for these leaders, victory provides not only legitimacy in the eyes of their followers and beyond, but also cements the creed itself. Acknowledging defeat would no longer be a confession of reality, but a threat to the very faith, casting doubt on the sacred verses that have always been considered absolute and correct.

Therefore, it has become almost impossible for those with deep religious convictions, such as the Khamenei doctrine in Iran or Hezbollah in Lebanon, to admit defeat or even concede failing to vanquish the enemy. Admitting the reality would mean questioning the doctrine of the Guardianship of the Jurisprudent (Wilayat al‑Faqih). It would force the Supreme Leader and his followers to reassess decades of work on their project and the doctrinal path that had prevailed all those years, but failed at the moment of trial.

Admitting Reality Undermines the Sanctity of the Faqih

Here, defeat or failure to achieve the goals implies that the Faqih, a man “most knowledgeable, most aware, who represents God on earth and is the deputy of the awaited Mahdi,” is capable of error.

Consequently, failure would shatter the halo of sanctity built around him. The Faqih does not appear as an ordinary person according to his own portrayal and that of his followers, which means one cannot demand that he reassess decisions or divine directives under the pretext that they are “inspired by God and mandated by Him.” If that happens, it would have a profound impact on his adherents and prompt them to question, and it is precisely that questioning which the Faqih fears, given that their thoughts, lives, and very existence have been shaped by years of indoctrination.

Hence, the declaration of victory becomes an escape route, a way for the leadership to avoid accountability. It turns the harsh reality into “the best possible,” amplifies the enemy’s image, and shifts discourse away from defeat and its causes toward the notion of divine testing. It emphasizes preparation for the next confrontation, where victory is assured, because true believers “never lose.” The ideologue is bound by the text, not reality; victory lies in adherence to scripture regardless of battlefield outcomes.

However, the condition of Hezbollah’s followers, after the recent war ended with a ceasefire that requires Hezbollah to disarm, makes it difficult for them to believe in any victory. This is evident among the base. Nonetheless, the victory rhetoric, though failing to convince supporters despite Naim Qassem’s persistent efforts, still meets a psychological need: it allows followers to cling to absolution and avoid admitting they lost everything for nothing.

Naim Qassem Reinterprets “Victory” Again

Since the end of the war, Hezbollah’s leader has repeated speeches trying to explain “victory” to his followers, reinforcing the above points.

Qassem spoke about his concept of victory, one that ignores battlefield facts. He said his party was now unable even to respond to Israel’s continued targeting of its members.

He spoke of “Islamic behavior aligned with the method we believed came from God Almighty,” asserting that “the natural result of this behavior—i.e., fighting in the way of God Almighty—leads to one of two good outcomes: victory or martyrdom,” quoting the verse:

“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties in exchange for Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.”

He said figuratively, “We have both outcomes: either a person is killed and becomes a martyr in God’s cause, or the person achieves victory, bringing a material reflection of that victory.”

He also invoked a statement by his predecessor Hassan Nasrallah: “When we win, we win, and when we become martyrs we win.” Qassem explained, “So we have no defeats, because the measure is this: Did you remain steadfast in your position, or did you waver and change that position? If you remained steadfast, that means you have won, whether the gain is through direct material victory or through martyrdom, which also signifies a victory.”

Beyond this rhetoric, which raises concern over Hezbollah’s insistence on transcending reality and highlights its lack of a real readiness to conduct an honest debrief rooted in facts, lies a distinction between the concepts of truth and victory. Truth cannot be defeated, and falsehood cannot prevail. But the defeated cannot claim victory by persisting in the same way that led them to defeat in the first place, nor by continuing to claim victory. As for where the truth actually lies, that is another discussion.