Adi Bershadsky is an Israeli security and defense expert, having formerly served as Colonel in the Israeli Airforce.
 

In a world undergoing unprecedentedly swift changes, traditional battlefields are giving way to a complex, multidimensional, and technologically-driven arena. Future wars will integrate advanced technologies, cyber warfare, and emerging strategic threats alongside conventional military forces such as tanks, aircraft, and ground troops. In this dynamic reality, the crucial question arises: what will future wars look like, and what character will the new battlefield take?

An IDF artillery cannon approaches Gaza in the early months of the Israel-Hamas war | Source: Shutterstock

 

The Current Arena: Geopolitical Turbulence and Its Impact

The world is currently experiencing significant geopolitical upheaval. Rapid shifts in foreign policies, particularly from global powers like the United States, are causing profound alterations in power balances and the international rules of engagement. Changes in attitudes towards countries like China, Iran, Russia, and Turkey, along with new policy initiatives concerning conflict areas such as the Gaza Strip, directly affect combat patterns and global security perceptions.

 

Key Trends in the Future Battlefield:

 

1. Psychological warfare as a central component: Psychological warfare will become a primary battlefield aimed at influencing public opinion, creating confusion, and destabilizing adversaries.

 

2. Civilians as strategic weapons: The kidnapping of civilians and their use as political and strategic bargaining chips will become a key tactic employed by terrorist organizations and rogue states.

 

3. Women in key combat and decision-making roles: The increasing presence of women in combat roles, leadership, and strategic executive positions will significantly influence conflict management and decision-making processes.

 

4. Digital warfare and autonomous systems: Enhanced use of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and laser-based weaponry, in conjunction with traditional forces, will profoundly transform warfare.

 

5. Strengthening offensive capabilities: Many nations will shift from purely defensive development towards enhancing advanced offensive capabilities aimed at creating effective deterrence against evolving threats.

 

6. Asymmetric and guerrilla warfare: Conflicts with terrorist organizations and guerrilla forces will remain significant challenges, requiring innovative approaches and sophisticated strategies.

 

In the future battlefield, political, military, and social leaders will face complex and diverse challenges, including psychological warfare, the strategic exploitation of civilians, the empowerment of women in key roles, integration of advanced technologies and autonomous systems, Europe’s growing strategic autonomy, the advancement of offensive capabilities, handling asymmetric warfare, controlling evolving narratives, and preparing for conflicts of varying durations. Leaders will need exceptional mental agility, creativity, and responsibility to swiftly recognize new threats and develop effective solutions to prevent global catastrophes and foster a stable, secure world.

 

The Battlefield of Psychological Warfare

The next war won’t just be fought on borders, it will be fought in the mind. For decades, the State of Israel prepared for conventional military wars involving borders, tanks, aircraft, and Iron Dome batteries. But the most dangerous emerging threat does not require a single missile, just a computer screen, a crafted image, and a precise choice of keywords.

 

We are living in the age of cognitive warfare. No longer is it solely a struggle over territory, but a battle for public opinion. For truth. For the narrative. Psychological information warfare has become a powerful weapon wielded by hostile states and organizations, aiming to destabilize nations from within—without firing a single shot.

 

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran—all three actors are investing significant resources in psychological warfare. Their goal is not only physical harm, but mental disruption: weakening national resilience and fracturing social cohesion.

 

The enemy’s arsenal in the psychological war:

 

Spreading fake news. Staged videos, false reports of IDF casualties, and fabricated “insider” leaks. The objective: sow confusion, fear, and erode trust in state institutions.

 

Use of disturbing images and videos. Distributing footage—real or manipulated—of civilian harm to evoke intense emotions like fear, rage, helplessness, and a sense of betrayal by the state. On October 7th, 2023, Hamas filmed atrocities using the smartphones of victims and hostages and sent them in real time to their contacts—causing panic and uncertainty among families and friends. For over a year, Hamas has been releasing videos featuring Israeli hostages. Each video shakes the entire country. Families feel both hope and terror—relieved to see their loved ones alive but devastated by the psychological torment.

 

Manipulating public opinion on social media. Creating hundreds or thousands of fake accounts (“bots”) designed to flood online spaces with inflammatory comments, simulate extreme public sentiment, deepen divisions, and radicalize discourse.

 

Targeted Propaganda Broadcasts. Radio stations, TV channels, and websites aimed specifically at Israeli audiences—both Jewish and Arab—with the intent to plant subversive narratives.

 

Exploiting Sensitive Demographics. Spreading tailored messages to vulnerable groups—immigrants, religious or secular sectors—using their unique pain points to widen existing societal rifts.

 

Synchronizing Security Events with Psychological Campaigns. Coordinating terror attacks with immediate media and digital campaigns, creating a “dual effect”: both physical and psychological terror.

 

A War Over Our Identity

In cognitive warfare, the people themselves become the target. The aim is to cause Israelis to lose faith in their leaders, their institutions, the military—and even themselves. To make us view one another as enemies. When trust collapses, so does cohesion, governance, and national response capability.

 

Psychological wars manipulate emotion, fear, anger, envy, and induce helplessness. When the public descends into a full-blown crisis of trust, it becomes easier to ignite a rebellion, civil unrest, or create internal pressure to topple governments—not from the outside, but from within.

 

What can be done and how do we defend ourselves?

 

• Cognitive education and digital resilience: Schools, media, and government must work to raise awareness about psychological influence methods, teach how to identify disinformation, and promote appropriate responses.

 

• Detection and neutralization of foreign influence campaigns: Just as we identify terrorist infrastructure, we must detect and disrupt foreign influence operations in time—through cooperation between security agencies, media, and civil society.

 

• Encouraging unifying and inclusive dialogue: Not everything must be political. Even in times of disagreement, space must be preserved for shared dialogue. A divided nation is vulnerable solidarity is our shield.

 

• Government transparency and rapid response: When disinformation arises, the state must respond swiftly and transparently. The truth must arrive first—not just as a belated correction.

 

In the wars of tomorrow, it won’t just be cities that are destroyed, it will be the faith of citizens in their own countries. That is the real threat. Confronting it demands a deep cognitive shift: understanding that the heart of a nation is not only geographic, but also psychological. And when we protect the mind—we protect the homeland.

 

A New Weapon on the Battlefield: Civilian Abductions as Strategic Assets

In the evolving security landscape, the abduction of civilians has become a significant instrument of warfare—not merely terrorism intended to spread fear, but a strategic, psychological, and diplomatic lever. The objectives behind abductions are diverse: obtaining bargaining chips, disrupting governance, dragging the enemy into prolonged and exhausting negotiations, and severely undermining national morale.

 

October 7th, 2023, marked one of the darkest days in Israel’s history. On that day, a Saturday coinciding with the Jewish holiday of Simchat Torah, Hamas launched an unprecedented terror attack on communities near the Gaza border and southern Israel. The assault included thousands of militants infiltrating on foot, massive rocket barrages, direct attacks on civilians, murder of hundreds innocent people , burning homes, abductions, and brutal assaults against women, children, and the elderly.

 

During this attack, 250 civilians—infants, children, women, and men ranging in age from one to 86—were abducted. Most were kidnapped alive, some wounded, while others were taken after being murdered. For the first time in its history, Israel faced such a tragic scenario. Some hostages were released after 50 days, others after 480 days, yet as of April 2025, 59 hostages remain captive in Gaza, languishing in tunnels excavated by militants for over 550 days. At least 24 of them are believed to still be alive, yet tragically, no clear timeline or method for their return exists.

 

This harrowing reality deeply distresses Israeli society: approximately 70 percent of Israelis demand the immediate return of all hostages. Deep divisions have emerged within society regarding the strategy to conclude the war and dismantle Hamas. The presence of hostages in enemy territory significantly complicates military actions, posing a genuine threat to their lives with every offensive.

 

Only a small fraction of hostages have been rescued through direct operations; most returned through negotiated deals after prolonged negotiations. The wounds inflicted upon Israeli society by the events of October 7th will never fully recover, though the return of hostages could provide some measure of relief.

 

What is necessary to combat this phenomenon?

 

• Uncompromising, high-quality intelligence abductions do not occur in a vacuum; they require infrastructure, preparation, and complex logistics. Human intelligence (HUMINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), communications monitoring, and surveillance of pro-Iranian proxies are crucial for early detection and prevention of similar future incidents.

 

• An immediate and decisive field response is imperative, as any delay allows abductors to conceal hostages and turn them into complex diplomatic bargaining tools. Rapid response, even at considerable risk, may save lives and prevent prolonged blackmailing processes.

 

• Sensitive, gradual, and precise negotiations must remain focused and targeted, adhering to clear principles: maintaining deterrence, ensuring the hostages’ safety, and preventing precedents that could encourage future abductions.

 

• The principle of the “national clock” means that Israel cannot return to full normalcy as long as its citizens remain captive. This is not only a moral imperative but also a critical security necessity. The sense of mutual responsibility and national solidarity is an essential element of Israel’s resilience.

 

• Debrifing , Investigation and lesson-learning requires that every abduction event be systematically analyzed, especially the failures in security, intelligence, response, and diplomatic coordination. Lessons not learned will inevitably repeat themselves.

 

Prime international examples include Iran and its proxies:

 

• Take for instance Hezbollah’s abduction of foreign citizens in Lebanon in the 1980s and 1990s. Hezbollah kidnapped dozens of Western citizens, primarily Americans and Europeans, holding them captive for years. The abductors received direct assistance from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, and negotiations were conducted through a combination of secret diplomacy and covert operations.

 

• Iran has long resorted to civilian abductions as a political strategy. A known Iranian tactic is arresting dual nationals (Iranian British or Iranian-American), accusing them of espionage, and demanding the release of Iranian prisoners from Western countries. Through this practice, Iran effectively turned abduction into an established foreign policy tool.

 

• Additional Iranian proxies, like the Houthis in Yemen and pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq have kidnapped journalists, aid workers, and diplomats to extort Western countries. These activities are coordinated and directed by Tehran.

 

Civilian abduction has become a weapon wielded by states and terrorist organizations alike. The events of October 7th highlighted how such ideas could manifest into shocking realities, underscoring the strategic imperative to prepare accordingly.

Women in Key Combat and Decision-Making Roles

A fascinating, courteous, and incisive question: The impact of women’s presence in key positions—such as national security, warfare management, and strategic decision-making—is increasingly recognized globally as essential, diverse, and capable of softening extremes.

 

In Israel, women are largely absent from decision-making positions; currently, there are no women serving as CEOs of governmental ministries, and certain political parties still bar women from membership or from running for office. Women comprise merely 15.2 percent of ministers (out of 33) and 24 percent of members of Knesset (out of 120). These figures indicate significant underrepresentation relative to their proportion in the population.

 

If women were significantly involved in decision-making circles during conflicts such as Ukraine-Russia or Israel-Hamas/Hezbollah, one could see several scenarios and insights emerge:

 

1. Balance between strength and human sensitivity, encouraging humanitarian solutions parallel to combat activities.

 

2. Inter-sectoral dialogue and collaboration, since research indicates that women often manage crises using cooperation, communication, and diplomacy. Earlier attempts at dialogue might have occurred, even amidst ongoing conflicts such as Russia-Ukraine or Israel-Gaza.

 

3. Another one is the multidimensional perspective. Women typically consider broader aspects in their decision-making—not just tactics and military objectives, but also long-term societal impacts, effects on future generations, and civilian well-being. Discussions about military operations might thus consider not only “how do we win,” but also “how do we rebuild?”

 

4. Global Examples:

 

• Northern Ireland: Women’s participation in peace talks was pivotal in building trust between conflicting parties.

 

• Colombia: Women involved in peace negotiations successfully introduced social clauses and protective mechanisms for civilian populations.

 

• United Nations: In 2000, Security Council Resolution 1325 emphasized women’s contributions to conflict prevention and resolution.

 

5. Examples within Israel: If women had been at decision-making positions during operations in Gaza, Lebanon, or hostage-release negotiations, outcomes would have likely differed. In the current conflict, more women have assumed combat and support roles, even crossing physics boundaries. However, challenges remain in integrating women into units with religious, particularly ultra-Orthodox, men.

 

Given the increase in women combatants and leaders, how might strategic decisions about warfare, ceasefires, and other critical actions differ if women occupied central roles among top defense decisionmakers? This question gains relevance in the context of ongoing conflicts like Ukraine-Russia or Israel’s conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

Would decisions have differed? Likely so—not because women are weaker or more compromising, but because they bring different, sometimes complementary, and sometimes critical perspectives. Research shows that women tend to focus more on long-term implications, civilian impacts, and solutions that balance power with trust-building, civil responsibility, and post-conflict reconstruction.

 

In conflicts such as the ongoing one between Ukraine and Russia, women in key roles might have facilitated earlier dialogue initiatives or humanitarian ceasefires, driven by sensitivity toward vulnerable populations.

 

In Israel’s confrontations with Hamas or Hezbollah, women decisionmakers could amplify the voices of civilian communities, mothers, and indirectly impacted populations. Additional critical questions might arise at the decision-making level: not merely “how do we win?” but also “how do we protect society?” “How do we recover from post-conflict?” and “how do we ensure victory doesn’t undermine our future as a democratic, stable society?”

 

Increasing women’s presence in combat and command roles, alongside their strategic integration into leadership positions, creates a richer, multifaceted security apparatus—one that acknowledges military victory as only one element among many within national security.

 

Examples of Decisions by Female Prime Ministers and Presidents, especially during crises, wars, or security conflicts, illustrate how women in leadership roles often make decisions differently from traditional male leaders:

1. Golda Meir. As Israeli Prime Minister during the Yom Kippur War (1973), Meir made critical decisions during a national emergency. Despite criticism regarding preparedness, she demonstrated resilience, determination, and vision. She was authoritative and unafraid to exercise military force but later expressed regret for the war’s psychological and human costs—a sentiment, many viewed as profound emotional accountability. Ultimately, Meir assumed responsibility for intelligence failures preceding the war and resigned.

2. Angela Merkel. During the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis, Chancellor Merkel courageously opened Germany’s borders to a million refugees, despite domestic and external political pressures. Her decision, driven by moral responsibility rather than political popularity, exemplified leadership prioritizing humanitarian values over forceful approaches.

 

General insight: Women leaders do not hesitate to use force, when necessary, yet they also inherently emphasize inclusion, cross-cultural dialogue, social responsibility, and reconciliation. They ask not only “what’s the military situation?” but equally, “what’s happening to the civilians?” Thus, women broaden the security discourse, offering deeper leadership perspectives. Women in decision-making roles undoubtedly influence the decisions reached.

 

The Digital and Autonomous Battlefield

In an era where robotic systems, drones, and artificial intelligence increasingly fulfill combat roles, it seems technology might soon replace soldiers entirely. Yet, on the ground, a human presence remains crucial: soldiers, tanks, aircraft, and ethical decision-making. Integrating traditional forces with advanced technology will become the decisive factor.

 

This is the stark lesson Israel learned through the tragic events of October 7th.

 

The world talks extensively about digital warfare revolution—real-time enemy movement analysis through artificial intelligence, precise satellite intelligence, quantum computing capabilities enabling unprecedented calculations, and autonomous systems executing precision strikes without risking human lives. Yet amid this enthusiasm, we must not overlook one fundamental truth: without boots on the ground, decisive victory remains elusive.

 

Technology significantly reduces risks, increases accuracy, and decreases casualties—undoubtedly positive developments. However, technology alone cannot establish physical presence, build relationships with civilians, grasp nuanced cultural contexts, or make instantaneous ethical judgments. Decisively defeating an enemy and stabilizing territory necessitates soldiers and substantial equipment like tanks, armored vehicles, and protected bulldozers.

 

Technology is a force multiplier, not a replacement. Artificial intelligence supports decisions but does not make them. Satellites provide guidance but cannot conquer territory. Quantum computers simulate scenarios but cannot maintain physical defense lines. Even the most advanced autonomous systems remain limited in interpreting complex human realities.

 

The future belongs to integrated systems: ground forces equipped with advanced weaponry, backed by smart firepower, computerized control, secure communications, and real-time data processing. This isn’t about replacing human power with high-tech solutions but rather enhancing human power through high-tech support.

 

Victory demands investment in both technology and the human element—not just artificial intelligence, but also human courage.

 

A promising new weapon entering service is laser-based defense systems. These systems revolutionize defense economics, enabling cost-effective interception of inexpensive threats such as rockets and incendiary balloons. Laser systems will complement existing defenses like Israel’s Iron Dome.

 

The Rise of Offensive Capabilities

In a world where persistent threats transcend geographic and digital borders, relying solely on defensive strategies is no longer sufficient. Countries are rethinking traditional defense balances and investing in advanced offensive capabilities. This strategic shift recognizes that proactive offense—military, digital, or psychological—can prevent conflicts from escalating.

 

The shift from purely defensive measures to offensive deterrence indicates a new warfare era, where nations with superior offensive capabilities gain significant global advantages. Russia’s cyber and missile strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure, despite failing to secure immediate victory, demonstrated strategic advantages by disrupting Ukraine’s civilian support systems and response capabilities. Without Western support, Ukraine’s resilience would have collapsed under these assaults.

 

With President Trump’s changing stance towards Russia and calls for ending hostilities, Ukraine must reassess and realign its geopolitical strategies and objectives.

 

For years, Israel has pursued an offensive strategy through “the campaign between wars,” involving covert and overt operations aimed at disrupting enemy capabilities early. However, Israel’s reliance on defensive technology alone proved catastrophic on October 7th, reflecting a critical misjudgment of enemy intentions. Had offensive actions been effectively implemented sooner, enemy capabilities could have been curtailed.

 

Border communities in southern Israel lived with routine rocket attacks, relying heavily on the Iron Dome defense system. This reliance enabled enemy fortification and tunnel development, culminating in the devastating surprise attack on October 7th. Hamas fighters infiltrated border communities, murdering, kidnapping, and destroying indiscriminately.

 

Israel’s development of the sophisticated Arrow missile defense system over three decades highlights defensive excellence, yet civilian disruptions persist during attacks. Iran’s missile and drone threats prompted millions of Israelis to shelters, disrupting daily life significantly, even before Iran achieves full nuclear capabilities.

 

In April and October 2024, Israeli defenses, supported by allies, effectively minimized casualties from Iranian attacks. Nonetheless, by late October 2024, Israel moved beyond defense alone, coordinating offensive strikes within enemy territories, marking a significant strategic shift.

 

Cyberattacks have transitioned from isolated incidents to legitimate state-level warfare strategies. Countries like Iran, China, and the U.S. invest heavily in cyber capabilities to target economies, sophisticated weapons systems, and public perceptions. Enhanced offensive capabilities have become critical in redefining global defense strategies.

 

Following the Russia-Ukraine war, European countries significantly increased defense budgets, developing offensive alongside defensive capabilities. Japan, traditionally committed exclusively to defense post-World War II, now similarly adopts offensive military capabilities.

 

Ultimately, effective warfare combines clear strategic goals, tactical flexibility, and the integration of technology with human insight. Every conflict concludes with diplomatic agreements, often involving third-party mediators, where human judgment remains paramount, supported but never replaced by technology.

 

Asymmetric Warfare: A Challenge for Powers, an Advantage for Armed Groups

In recent decades, asymmetric warfare has become the dominant model of military conflict worldwide—especially in regions where regular armed forces confront decentralized militant organizations, often driven by deep ideological motivations. Both Israel and the United States have repeatedly found themselves facing enemies that are not sovereign states, but rather terrorist guerrilla movements or armed militias—from Hamas in Gaza, through Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the Houthis in Yemen. These confrontations challenge the traditional rules of warfare—militarily, politically, and in the cognitive arena.

 

1. The Israeli Arena: Between Gaza and Lebanon

Israel’s conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah are textbook examples of asymmetric warfare. On the one hand: a state with a powerful army, a superior air force, top-tier intelligence, and unmatched technological access. On the other: terrorist organizations that use civilian populations as human shields, launch rockets from schools and hospitals, and operate outside the bounds of international conventions. Attempting to “win” such a conflict through military means alone has become nearly impossible—especially as the cognitive battlefield has become the most decisive arena.

 

2. A New Front: The Houthis in Yemen

The Houthi attacks on Israel during Operation Iron Swords opened a new front. The threat from Yemen wasn’t in the scale of destruction, but in its strategic implications—signaling a broadening axis connecting Iran to its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Israel now finds itself deploying defensive systems in the deep south, while considering its options: Should it strike directly in Yemen? Retaliate against Iran? Once again, the asymmetric dilemma arises: every response must be measured, effective, yet carefully calibrated to avoid full-scale escalation.

 

3. The American Angle: Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Houthis

The United States, like Israel, has been entangled in guerrilla warfare for over two decades. The withdrawal from Afghanistan marked a stinging defeat by a determined terror organization. In Iraq, against ISIS and Shiite militias, the U.S. struggled to impose stability. Today, it faces ongoing Houthi attacks on maritime targets and American bases—with hesitating responses that highlight the difficulty of deterring an enemy that isn’t a state and is undeterred by casualties.

 

Technology alone is not enough: as impressive as Iron Dome, Arrow 3, or future laser systems may be, they cannot defeat a war of narratives, determination, and psychological endurance.

 

Having a multidimensional strategy is essential: Military tools must be combined with economic leverage, narrative control, diplomacy, and international pressure. Asymmetric warfare is also a battle of ideas.

 

A new way of thinking is required: The strategy of “strike hard and return to normal” is obsolete. Long-term policies are needed to erode the enemy’s legitimacy, strengthen domestic resilience, and harness global support.

 

Ground maneuver remains critical: Technology doesn’t replace territorial control. In guerrilla warfare, boots on the ground still play a vital role in surgical operations and enemy disruption.

 

One of the key reasons behind the continued strength of guerrilla organizations is the massive gap in the cost of their weapons versus the enormous expense required for defense and retaliation by regular armies. Here are figures that illustrate this disparity:

Economic and Security Implications:

 

Massive Cost Disparities: A terrorist organization can launch a rocket for under $1,000, while intercepting it may cost 50-100 times more. It’s a war in which the economic burden lies with the stronger side.

 

A War of Economic Attrition: Hamas doesn’t need to achieve military victory—it only needs to force Israel to spend billions on Iron Dome interceptors, munitions, readiness, and troop deployment to create a persistent sense of internal insecurity.

 

Lifesaving but Budget-Draining: Israel spends hundreds of millions of shekels in every campaign just on interceptors—accumulating into billions over time.

 

The world has changed, and warfare has evolved with it. In the asymmetric era, tanks are not enough tanks, fighter jets are insufficient, and victory is no longer measured by targets destroyed. Conflicts with Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis will persist for years to come. Only broad strategic thinking, multinational cooperation, and strong internal social and national resilience can enable us to face the true security challenges of the twenty-first century.

 

Not Just War: On People, Technology, Perception, and Hope

The world is changing at a dizzying pace—and so is the battlefield. But not just the one where bullets fly. This is an era where drones and artificial intelligence intersect with human values, and soldiers are faced with data screens. Yet the real struggle is not only over borders—but over consciousness, morality, identity, and humanity itself.

 

Technology may be dazzling autonomous systems, lasers faster than light, quantum simulations of combat. But even in the most computerized future, we will still need someone who knows how to hug a child, raise a flag, distinguish between an enemy and a civilian—and most importantly, make a moral decision under pressure. On tomorrow’s battlefield, there is no substitute for human judgment, emotion, and willpower.

 

Even in the darkest places—like the abduction of civilians, psychological warfare, or asymmetric combat—it is there that our resilience as a society is truly tested. Not only by how many defense systems we have, but by how many eyes we keep open, how many hearts keep beating together, and how many women and men insist on rising to lead.

 

And what about hope? Hope exists—not as a cliché, but as a strategy. Hope is in the laser that intercepts a rocket at low cost. In the hope that more and more women will enter the circles of decision-making, bringing with them a broader, healing voice. In the hope that an Israeli boy and a Lebanese girl will no longer fear the sky. In the hope that we realize that we will not win forever with tanks alone—but with ideas, with ethics, with the ability to imagine a different future.

 

How do we protect what is invisible—trust, resilience, hope? Because in a world where wars are evolving, perhaps the answer lies not only in knowing how to fight—but in knowing when to stop, how to heal, and with whom to dream.

Back to Table of Contents