You do not have to be a former head of Military Intelligence to sense that something is unfolding on the Iranian front. The gap between the optimistic remarks made by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi at the conclusion of talks with US envoys in Geneva and the far gloomier tone coming from the other side of the Atlantic points to one conclusion: war currently appears more likely than a signed deal.
Adding to that impression is the self-imposed silence of Israel's political and security leadership on the Iranian issue. Senior officials who are usually quick to comment on any subject, even those far beyond their remit, have suddenly quiet. It is reasonable to assume that the directive came from the Prime Minister's Office, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is known to enforce discipline among his ministers when he chooses to do so. The aim may be to leave the field entirely to the Americans, so as not to appear to be undermining their efforts or pushing them toward war. There may also be other explanations.
In the absence of an official statement or designated spokespersons, the public has been left to rely on those perceived to be in the know. Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, a former head of Military Intelligence, filled that vacuum yesterday when he told Channel 12 News that he "would think twice about flying abroad this coming weekend." Public anxiety responded accordingly. If Yadlin says so, many assume there must be a reason.
Israel's military preparations are no secret. They have been ongoing for weeks, both defensively and, should Israel come under attack, offensively. The initial assessment was that Iran might launch a pre-emptive strike, leading to a heightened state of alert that has been maintained almost continuously. On the offensive side, according to foreign reports, Israel's plans focus first on removing immediate threats against it.
US media reported over the weekend that Israel requested and received approval from Washington to target Iran's missile arrays in parallel with any American strike.
Pressure from Arab leaders
Still, it appears that only one person in the world truly knows whether an attack will take place: President Donald Trump. Even for him, the decision could change. Trump was reportedly on the verge of ordering a strike on January 14 after the scale of the massacre carried out by the Iranian regime against protesters became known. At the last moment, he reversed course under pressure from regional leaders, including Netanyahu.
It remains unclear how he will act now, as several regional leaders, not including Netanyahu, continue trying to dissuade him from war. Their efforts are partly driven by the onset of the holy month of Ramadan and fears that a broader conflict could destabilize their own countries.
Iran, for its part, could avert the looming developments by accepting US demands. It is doubtful that it will. Washington has reportedly presented Tehran with what amounts to an impossible list: abandoning its nuclear weapons ambitions, relinquishing its missile program, ending support for its regional proxies and allowing a degree of freedom for domestic protest that would effectively strip the ayatollahs' regime of its immunity. Some commentators believe this was a deliberate American trap designed to produce a polite Iranian refusal that would then serve as justification for military action.
Israel's undisguised interest is that any new war with Iran end unequivocally with the regime's overthrow. The US has sufficient force in the region to lead such a move. The question is whether the administration has the necessary staying power. Last year, Trump embarked on a similar course against the Houthi terrorist organization in Yemen, only to pull back weeks later when it became clear that the risk of entanglement outweighed the prospects for tangible gains.
Despite its strength, Iran is more vulnerable in certain respects, given the large number of physical assets and key figures that could be targeted. Yet without a ground presence, someone would have to seize the reins, as occurred after the capture of President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela.
The timing of any strike will likely take into account Friday's scheduled gathering in Washington of Trump's Peace Council. The initiative is intended to crown the president's foreign policy achievements, as he has boasted of bringing about a ceasefire in Gaza and advancing peace in the Middle East. Netanyahu has an interest in ensuring that the echoes of explosions in Tehran drown out speeches about peace in Washington. The question is what Trump will choose to highlight: whether he orders an attack before the conference, casting it in the shadow of war, or waits until it concludes and then turns to Iran.
In any case, the chances of success for Trump's ambitious plan for Gaza appear slim, given the gap between the stated objectives – demilitarizing the Strip, disarming and removing Hamas from power, rebuilding Gaza and withdrawing IDF troops – and the practical ability to achieve them. The recent death of Staff Sgt. Ofri Yafe, a soldier in the Paratroopers Brigade's reconnaissance unit, was a painful reminder that despite talk of peace, this remains a war zone.
