Strip away the legal hair-splitting about whether Qatar qualifies as an enemy state. In practical terms, Qatar is an adversary. From a moral standpoint, working for Doha during wartime constitutes betrayal. Severe betrayal, given that Qatar bankrolls Hamas' military operations, funds the global anti-Israel propaganda campaign, and operates the Al Jazeera disinformation empire that demonizes the Jewish state.

One might charitably explain why some Israelis cooperated with Qatar before October 7. Israel itself greenlit the infamous cash-stuffed suitcases flowing into Gaza, deliberately ignoring that much of the money fueled Hamas' terrorist infrastructure. Not everyone looked away. Shin Bet officials warned repeatedly that Israel should eliminate Yahya Sinwar and his cohorts. But Benjamin Netanyahu preferred the illusion of calm, dismissing concerns as a "calculated risk" (a phrase Hamas' leader mockingly threw back at him in a personal note).

But accepting even one Qatari riyal after October 7? That crosses into betrayal. When this collaboration emanates from the Prime Minister's Office – Israel's inner sanctum – the breach becomes exponentially worse. Three reasons make that office sacred: First, everyone working there serves only Israel's interests. Second, their sole mission is to advance the nation's security. Third, they fight enemies rather than serving them.

Netanyahu and his defenders insist that Eli Feldstein, the prime minister's former spokesman for military affairs, never formally worked in the office. Anyone who dealt with Feldstein knows better. Here's an episode worth sharing now. On a Saturday night in early 2024, while driving with one of my children, Feldstein called. We'd known each other for years, since his days as IDF spokesperson and later as the spokesman for the Judea and Samaria Division. I'd always appreciated his unconventional background – an ultra-Orthodox man who enlisted, loved military service, and possessed natural charisma.

We hadn't spoken much since his brief stint as Itamar Ben-Gvir's spokesperson at the Public Security Ministry. I'd objected then to his lending credibility to a serial offender bent on dismantling the police. Fortunately, Feldstein left Ben-Gvir shortly after.

That Saturday night conversation lasted only minutes. After exchanging pleasantries, he pitched an obviously fabricated story smearing Egypt. I declined to participate and suggested we end the call amicably. At the time, I couldn't fathom why the prime minister's military spokesperson would attack Egypt. The possibility that he was acting on Qatar's behalf never occurred to me.

Egypt deserves its own discussion. Among all the betrayals, undermining Israel-Egypt relations ranks near the top. This cabal actually jeopardized peace with Egypt – one of Israel's most vital strategic assets, alongside the US alliance and technological dominance. That the Arab world's largest, most populous nation with its most powerful military has maintained peace with Israel for 46 years represents a geopolitical triumph. Yes, it's cold peace. Cold peace is far preferable to armed conflict.

The disinformation campaign run from the Prime Minister's Office sought to invert reality, casting Qatar as peacemaker and Egypt as warmonger. The lies included claims that Egypt violated the peace treaty by massing troops in Sinai, that Egyptian intelligence officials skimmed money from Hamas funding, that Cairo knew about October 7 in advance and conspired in Israel's deception, and that Egypt sabotaged hostage negotiations. Every accusation was false. Unfortunately, some journalists amplified them.

A word about journalism. Reporters thrive on leaks and should encourage sources to come forward. Journalists also rely on information from political offices, all of which have agendas. A reporter can assess motives, but the only test that matters is whether a story is significant and accurate. The fabrications peddled by the Qatar network inside the Prime Minister's Office were certainly sensational. They failed the truth test. A single call to mid-level or senior security officials would have exposed them as fiction.

Betrayal (2)

Every nation dreams of penetrating its adversary's leadership circle with operatives. The Mossad has invested enormous resources toward this goal over decades, succeeding only occasionally. So have premier Western and Eastern intelligence services. Qatar infiltrated Netanyahu's office effortlessly, and on the cheap.

Since October 7, the Shin Bet has uncovered more than 60 instances of Israeli citizens recruited to spy for Iran. No reasonable person considers it acceptable that Israelis assist Iranian intelligence operations, much less violent actions. Everyone recognizes this as betrayal – aiding the enemy during wartime. Yet many minimize Qatargate's severity. Most troubling are public officials (cabinet members, ministers, Knesset members) whose fear of Netanyahu trumps both common sense and their obligations to citizens and national security.

Imagine the uproar if this betrayal had occurred under former prime ministers Naftali Bennett or Yair Lapid. Critics would demand not only prosecuting those who took Qatari payments but also investigating the prime minister for employing advisors who turned double agents and for failing to supervise his own staff. Two scenarios exist: Either Netanyahu knew and approved, making him complicit, or he didn't know, making him negligent. His silence suggests he's hiding something or fears establishing a narrative that will later prove false.

Let's go back to Iranian espionage. Shin Bet and police are struggling to understand why so many Israelis betrayed their homeland. Initial assumptions focused on marginalized citizens – recent immigrants without family ties or military service, whose connection to Israel remained weak. As cases multiplied, that theory collapsed. Iran recruited across demographics: young and old, wealthy and struggling, urban and peripheral, religious and secular, native-born and immigrants, Mizrahi and Ashkenazi. Dozens of Israelis worked for Tehran in exchange for money.

Israel was long considered nearly impossible to penetrate with spies. Unlike neighboring states, Israel's social cohesion remained strong, built on the collective understanding that interdependence ensured survival. Historically, Israeli traitors fell into two categories: foreign-trained operatives planted in Israel (Marcus Klingberg being the most notorious) and ideologically motivated betrayers (Udi Adiv, Mordechai Vanunu).

Today's phenomenon differs fundamentally, and it's deeply troubling, not just because of the sheer numbers caught (with many more presumably undetected) but because it signals something essential has fractured. We must confront this fracture, because it's corrupting our national soul. When ordinary Israelis witness betrayal emanating from the Prime Minister's Office, they absorb the message that it's acceptable. When they watch Netanyahu and his ministers close ranks protecting cronies rather than demanding accountability, they understand it's permitted. When they learn that serving the enemy state Qatar isn't particularly serious, they conclude it's allowed.

Add to this the systematic demolition of everything once held sacred – the justice system, the security establishment, social solidarity, and ultimately the State of Israel itself. Simultaneously, ministers and legislators suspected of serious crimes skip interrogations or evade prosecution, while a prime minister transforms his trial into theater and seeks pardons (while refusing responsibility for the catastrophe that occurred on his watch and attempting to obstruct legitimate investigations). Some Israelis observe all this and conclude nothing remains sacred.If senior officials can get away with anything, why shouldn't the ordinary citizen?

Betrayal (3)

Benjamin Netanyahu must face investigation because these events occurred in his office, originated from his office, and were executed by his office personnel .The multiplicity of versions and lies regarding Feldstein could have been amusing, if it didn't teach how much this affair frightens those at the top. Initially, he was portrayed as a loyal patriot (Justice Minister Amir Ohana even compared him to Dreyfus). Suddenly, he transformed into disposable garbage that acted independently.

Make no mistake: Feldstein didn't stumble into sensitive locations by chance. I've visited the Israeli Air Force command center (known as "the pit") multiple times. Access requires official guest credentials. That's exactly what he possessed, and not just there. He operated as part of the prime minister's inner circle. That's why journalists accepted the information he peddled. He spoke with the Prime Minister's Office.

The new Shin Bet director, David Zini, should lead the demand for Netanyahu's investigation (Police Commissioner Dani Levy should be second). Among his responsibilities at the Shin Bet, Zini oversees counterespionage operations, security clearances, and safeguarding classified information at the Prime Minister's Office. All these systems failed, and accountability demands answers about whose responsibility this was and who authorized it. Only Netanyahu can provide those answers, including explanations for other matters like the classified document leaked to the German Bild.

Whether Zini will act remains doubtful. He hasn't yet developed the spine such action requires. Two days ago, his deputy, agreed to conclude his tenure and retire promptly. The two clashed from the outset. Perhaps because the deputy struggled adjusting back to deputy status after serving months as acting director. Perhaps due to Zini's habit of speaking, according to multiple sources, in exclamation points despite still being new to the job

Zini has commenced the search for the deputy's replacement. The sole natural internal candidate is currently studying abroad (N., former Operations Division head), and the organization's remaining senior leadership is exceptionally young in both age and experience. Expectations are that Zini will recruit an external deputy, someone who previously served and departed but would now return. The leading candidate is A., who headed the Southern Region in the years before October 7. Another possibility is N., formerly Gaza Division chief and currently at the National Security Council. Selecting him would constitute an Olympic-level leap over standard positions and ranks, but in contemporary Israel, anything's feasible.

Additional candidates exist, including some whose return would be welcome, though it won't materialize. For instance, E., who formerly led the Israel Region, failed to secure the deputy position solely because Netanyahu's office discovered his brother had participated in protests against the prime minister. This approaches the severity of mentioning "Ronen Bar," former chief of the Shin Bet, the two words Zini omitted from his inaugural address. Yes, Bar bears responsibility for October 7, but he also deserves credit for the Shin Bet's major wartime achievements. Zini's failure to acknowledge him registered within the Shin Bet as pandering to Netanyahu, who attended the ceremony.

Zini won't establish his legacy through Netanyahu's favor. He'll build it through rigorous work, through earning his organization's respect, and through delivering results that ordinary citizens experience. His public stance on Qatargate isn't optional. It's mandatory. This represents his sworn duty to national security. If he fails to stop betrayal at the top, he stands no chance of preventing the deluge rising from below.

The post How Qatar infiltrated Netanyahu's office while Iran recruited Israeli spies appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Nowhere is this new reality more apparent than at Christmas markets today. Christmas markets are among Europe's most beloved cultural traditions, dating back as far as the 13th century. As a Jewish girl, one of my favorite things to do after Chanukah is visit a Christmas market, either locally here in Israel, where Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Haifa host markets and celebrations, or, if I am really craving the Christmas spirit, to travel to Europe and experience the nostalgia of how I grew up celebrating Christmas in Canada. What were once open, festive spaces for families and tourists now require concrete barricades and armed guards. Christmas markets have shifted from calm, joyful gatherings to prime targets for attacks by radical Islamists, forcing police across Europe to impose extensive counterterrorism measures.

The phrase "First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people" was never just meant to scare people. We are now living through that reality.

Security services across Europe have repeatedly warned that Christmas markets are high-value targets for Islamist terrorism because of their large crowds, open layouts, and religious symbolism. Just weeks ago, five men were arrested in Germany on suspicion of plotting to ram a vehicle into a Christmas market with the intent of killing or injuring as many people as possible. Three Moroccans, an Egyptian, and a Syrian were detained, and authorities stated they suspected an Islamist motive. Adding another layer of concern, the German newspaper Bild reported that the Egyptian suspect was an imam at a local mosque near the planned attack site.

This threat is not new. Just last year in Germany, a Saudi national who arrived in the country in 2006 and applied for asylum a decade later allegedly carried out a deadly attack on a Christmas market in Magdeburg, killing five people and injuring more than 200 others. The Guardian reported that the suspect had posted warnings on social media suggesting that "something big will happen." However, the first known terrorist plot targeting a Christmas market dates back to 2000, when authorities uncovered plans to attack the Strasbourg market near the cathedral in France. That December, an al-Qaeda–affiliated cell planned to carry out a bombing on New Year's Eve. French and German police foiled the plot after dismantling a Frankfurt-based terrorist network linked to the operation. Fourteen individuals were later convicted, four in Germany and ten in France, including Mohammed Bensakhria, who was identified as the cell's operational leader and widely regarded as a senior al-Qaeda figure in Europe with direct ties to Osama bin Laden.

Following the Arab Spring and the subsequent surge of migration from Muslim-majority countries into Europe, a modest but noticeable increase in such attacks began to emerge. One of the most significant occurred in December 2016, when a heavy truck was deliberately driven into the Christmas market at Berlin's Breitscheidplatz. The attack killed 13 people and injured more than 50 others. The perpetrator, Anis Amri, a 24-year-old Tunisian national whose asylum application had been rejected, hijacked the truck after murdering its driver and then drove it into the crowd. ISIS quickly claimed responsibility, and the attack became one of the deadliest terrorist incidents in Germany in recent history.

Two years later, in December 2018, the Strasbourg Christmas market was once again targeted, and this time the attack succeeded. The attacker, Chekattif Chekatt, armed with a revolver and a knife, assaulted civilians in and around the market, killing five people and wounding 11 others. He was known to police, had been flagged as a suspected extremist, and was connected to ISIS prior to the attack.

While ISIS no longer controls large swaths of territory as it did at its peak between 2014 and 2019, the group continues to maintain cells across Europe and in Western countries, including Australia. There is evidence suggesting that ISIS inspired the attack at the Bondi Beach Chanukah celebration, where two terrorists opened fire and killed at least fifteen Jews. Australian authorities reported that flags and explosive materials linked to the father-and-son attackers indicated ISIS influence. The thwarted terror attack at Taylor Swift's concert in Vienna during her Eras Tour was also carried out by an ISIS sympathizer.

Christians must come to terms with a difficult reality: they too are targets. The belief that terrorism is someone else's problem, confined to Jews, Israelis, or distant conflict zones, has been shattered. Churches, Christmas markets, concerts, and holiday celebrations now sit squarely in the crosshairs of violent Islamist extremism. Faith, visibility, and public joy are precisely what make these spaces attractive to those who seek to terrorize open societies.

Radical Islamist ideology does not distinguish between Jewish or Christian lives, Western or non-Western civilians. Ironically, the group of people who have suffered the most from radical Islam are Muslims themselves. The targets change, but the goal remains the same: fear, submission, and the erosion of free, open civilization.

Jews, Christians, Muslims and all people who value human life must stand together against jihadist ideology wherever it appears.

The post Christmas markets are now terror targets appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The US and Israel are closely monitoring Iran's efforts to rehabilitate its ballistic missile systems, air defense capabilities and nuclear program. There is close coordination and intelligence sharing between the two countries, including broad agreement on the need to thwart Tehran's attempts at rebuilding these capabilities. During the meeting in Florida, Israel is expected to present the intelligence dossier it has compiled, along with assessments of the pace of Iran's recovery.

From Israel's perspective, one of the key goals of the meeting is to secure US recognition that as long as the current regime remains in power in Iran, it will continue to operate terrorist organizations throughout the region, fuel conflicts and undermine Washington's broader Middle East vision, known as the "mega deal."

Israel Hayom has learned that former minister Ron Dermer assisted in preparations for the meeting, particularly on the Iranian issue. Dermer previously oversaw the Iran portfolio and was a central architect of cooperation with the US that culminated in American backing for Israel during the war and US participation in the strike on the Fordow nuclear facility.

The Israeli delegation is expected to include Gil Reich, acting head of the National Security Council, who has recently grown very close to Netanyahu; Ofir Falk, the prime minister's foreign policy adviser; Maj. Gen. Roman Gofman, the prime minister's military secretary; and Israel's ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter.

A second major topic on the agenda is Gaza and the transition to the next Phase. The Americans have been unable to assemble a multinational force due to countries' refusal to deploy troops while Hamas remains armed. As a result, Washington is turning its attention to the civilian track. The expectation is that following the meeting or meetings, an announcement will be made on the launch of a reconstruction process through the establishment of a new governing civilian body, largely composed of Palestinians who previously worked for the Palestinian Authority. Israel Hayom has reported that lists of some of the candidates expected to assume civilian authority have been transferred to Israel for security vetting, to ensure they are not affiliated with Hamas.

Meanwhile, US officials were angered by Defense Minister Israel Katz's statement about establishing Nahal outposts in the Gaza Strip. A stern message was conveyed to Israel, and Katz subsequently walked back the comment. An American official sent a message immediately after the remark was published, writing simply: "WTF?"

According to the official, Israel must adhere to every detail of the Trump plan to which it agreed, in order to preserve prospects for political progress in the region and, above all, to maintain trust between Jerusalem and Washington. An Israeli source added that what he described as Katz's "slip of the tongue," made in the midst of preparations for Netanyahu's visit to the US, was extremely problematic. Israel, he said, made clear to the Americans that the defense minister had corrected his remarks and that Israel remains committed to the Trump plan.

The post Iran core issue in Trump-Netanyahu meeting despite denials appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Einhorn demanded that this relationship be disclosed in the response segment, which Assenheim indeed read out in full and did not deny. It is also reasonable to assume that Feldstein chose to give the interview specifically to Assenheim because he trusted him. Still, that personal connection did not prevent Assenheim from posing tough questions, nor did it spare Feldstein from giving answers that were, at times, embarrassing.

On the interview

1. The lengthy conversation with Feldstein shows the enormous pressure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced to stop the war prematurely. He insisted on continuing, even after six hostages were murdered by Hamas, and it is important to once again give the prime minister substantial credit for that resolve. That very stance ultimately led to the successful deal that secured the release of all the hostages, except for Ran Gvili, for whom we are all still waiting.

2. The original sin of this affair was the decision to keep Feldstein employed within Netanyahu's circle, despite his failure to pass Shin Bet security screenings. According to Feldstein's testimony, this stemmed from the desire of Netanyahu's aides, specifically Jonatan Urich, to continue using Feldstein's media services. That is how the workaround was devised: paying his salary through a third party.

3. Instead of resorting to such a maneuver, the proper course of action would have been to thank Feldstein for his work and send him home. That is precisely why such security screenings exist. This is what proper governance looks like.

4. Feldstein's statements, along with other evidence, fundamentally contradict the version put forward by Netanyahu's associates, who claim that Feldstein was removed from the prime minister's environment in April 2024 after failing the Shin Bet check. The six hostages were murdered in August 2024. Netanyahu's press conference in which he pledged not to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor took place on September 3, 2024. The publication of the so-called "Sinwar documents" in the German newspaper Bild, material that Feldstein passed on to the paper, appeared on September 6. It was intended to shield Netanyahu, and Urich sent Feldstein a message afterward saying, "The boss is pleased." In other words, long after he had been disqualified, Feldstein was still deeply involved, and there is additional evidence to that effect.

Who paid Feldstein?

5. It is hard to believe Feldstein's claim that he was "naive" and that he "made a mistake" by not clarifying for many months who this individual, Gil Birger, was who paid his salary and why. This explanation is even less credible given that Feldstein sat in a three-way, face-to-face meeting with Birger and Jay Footlik, a lobbyist for Qatar. Feldstein is neither stupid nor naive. Either he knew the source of the funds and is lying, or he did not ask because he did not want to know, as Assenheim suggested. What is certain is that anyone who receives a salary knows who is paying them and for what reason, especially someone as sophisticated as Feldstein, and especially when serving as a spokesman connected to the prime minister.

6. It is telling that in Netanyahu's response on Monday night, he said only of Urich that "there is no offense here." In other words, legally, his loyal adviser was cleared. Substantively, however, even Netanyahu appears to understand the problem. Ultimately, one of his closest confidants ventured at least into a gray area by attaching to him a spokesman whose salary was paid by an external actor. That may be legal, but it certainly stinks. And all this is before we even utter the word Qatar.

7. Both Urich, in a post on X, and Feldstein claim they did not know that Feldstein's salary came from the Qatari lobbyist. To the best of my knowledge, as of now there is no positive proof that they had such knowledge. But, and this is a big but, the circumstantial evidence shows that they acted in Qatar's interest.

8. As exposed by Avishai Grinzeig in a report on Sunday, Feldstein systematically worked to advance Qatar's interests. This was reflected in the briefings he planted with commentators and reporters, as well as in other actions he took. These moves were carried out in coordination, or at least with updates, involving Israel Einhorn, and in close contact with Jonathan Urich. This is the same Urich who, as noted, devised the distorted arrangement under which Feldstein's salary was paid by an external entity working for Qatar.

9. In other words, Feldstein promoted Qatar while also receiving money from Qatar, all under an arrangement stitched together by his associates, Einhorn and Urich. Their claim is that this happened without their knowing that Qatar was the funding source. That is like saying there is smoke without fire, or a cause without an effect. It is very hard to accept this feigned innocence, especially from such a seasoned group of operators.

10. And of course, all this took place during the most difficult war since Israel's founding, from the very heart of the Prime Minister's Office and the Kirya military complex in Tel Aviv, right under the prime minister's nose. If he knew about the crooked arrangement and or that the money was coming from Qatar, that is appalling. If he did not know, that is no less appalling. In light of these revelations, Netanyahu must at the very least give testimony in this affair.

11. Netanyahu's associates are defending him, as expected. For me, this chain of actions recalled a famous line by Richard Nixon about the Watergate affair: "People whose zeal exceeded their judgment and who may have done wrong in a cause they deeply believed to be right." Nixon, as we know, was ultimately forced to resign over Watergate.

The post When loyalty replaced judgment appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The discussion began with a report on NBC that was only partially accurate, claiming Iran has the capability to produce 3,000 long-range surface-to-surface missiles within a short period of time. The reality is far from that, as Iran is not capable of manufacturing missiles on that scale so quickly. Still, security officials acknowledge in conversations with Israel Hayom that Iran's motivation in recent weeks to rebuild its missile array has grown, with a particular emphasis on launchers, which are a bottleneck in the rate of missile launches toward Israel.

According to Israeli assessments, Iran is seeking to significantly increase not only its missile stockpile but, more importantly, the number of launchers, in order to carry out an opening strike that would paralyze Israel and its air defense systems through the launch of a large volume of missiles.

Another report, published by Axios, said Israel suspects that a military exercise currently underway in Iran is a cover for a surprise attack Iran is planning against Israel. Here, too, there is a kernel of truth. Israel is indeed monitoring the exercise, but according to security sources, there is no concrete intelligence indicating that Iran has decided to use it as camouflage for a surprise strike. It is reasonable to assume that whoever leaked Israeli concerns about the exercise also sought to use the publication as a warning to Iran, making clear that Israel is aware of the drill and is closely tracking it.

Iran is a "wounded animal"

This is the place to positively note the shift in Israeli thinking since October 7, and the fact that Israel is closely monitoring developments in Iran and is not once again falling into the trap of assuming Iranian capabilities have been destroyed for the long term and that the threat has been pushed far into the future. In Israel, officials understand that Iran is a "wounded animal." If before Operation Rising Lion it sought Israel's destruction and built capabilities toward that end, then after the operation its motivation has not declined but, on the contrary, has only intensified.

In recent months, Israel assessed that Iran, and Israel as well, required a certain period of recovery after Operation Rising Lion to rebuild its missile infrastructure. The prevailing assumption was therefore that it would take time before the next round. However, as noted, the intelligence Israel is closely following points to an acceleration in the rehabilitation of Iran's missile array, alongside some activity aimed at attempting to restart its nuclear program.

One of the most troubling variables that has received less media attention in recent days is Iran's highly complex internal situation, reflected, among other things, in the ongoing erosion of its currency. Israel does not rule out the possibility that, in order to cope with its domestic problems, the Iranian regime may seek to initiate an external war with Israel to divert public attention away from the country's economic and other difficulties.

In any case, senior officials told Israel Hayom that the arena most troubling Israel's defense establishment leaders at this time is Iran, and the greatest fear is a miscalculation or a surprise of which Israel would be unaware. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the issue last night, saying, "We know that Iran has been conducting exercises recently. We are following this, making the necessary preparations. And I want to make clear to Iran: any action will be met with a very harsh response."

Meanwhile, Israel's defense establishment is preparing all the intelligence and operational material Netanyahu will need for discussions with President Trump. The central problem, as analyzed in Israel, is that while Trump is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he has not promised to remove the threat posed by surface-to-surface missiles, which Israel has also rightly defined as an existential threat. As a result, much will depend on the meeting between Netanyahu and Trump at the end of the month.

The post The next Iran flashpoint is closer than Israel assumes appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The dossier to be presented to Trump and his team is aimed at forging close Israeli-US coordination to address what Jerusalem views as the root of the Iranian problem. Israeli officials believe the US president recognizes Iran as the head of the terrorism octopus in the Middle East, the aggressive force driving regional instability and the main obstacle to advancing a comprehensive regional agreement, Trump's envisioned mega-deal. Even so, Trump has so far refrained from decisive action against the regime, and the meeting with Netanyahu is intended to establish clear milestones for handling Iran.

This time, Prime Minister Netanyahu will travel without Ron Dermer, the former minister who served for years as his closest confidant in dealings with the US administration. His absence is expected to be felt keenly on this trip. Filling the role will be Israel's ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter. Leiter is well regarded at the White House but does not yet enjoy the same level of deep personal connections as his predecessor. On the other hand, Dermer also carried baggage with parts of the administration, while Leiter arrives with a clean slate.

The Iranian octopus

About a month ago, Israel Hayom reported intelligence indicating that Iran, through Hezbollah, Hamas and their command centers in Turkey, has been advancing terrorist attacks in Europe and Latin America. One such plot, an attempted assassination of Israel's ambassador to Mexico, Einat Kranz-Neiger, was thwarted by local authorities after intelligence provided by Israel.

The updated Israeli assessment holds that without toppling the regime in Tehran, Israel is doomed to many more years of recurring wars, at varying intensities, against Iran's proxies, including Hezbollah, Palestinian terrorist organizations and the Houthis, and potentially against Iran itself.

The dilemma is whether to embark on a dramatic move against the regime, a step that could trigger military escalation in which Israel's air and technological superiority is expected to prevail, but at the cost of further days of paralysis for the country and its economy. On the other hand, there is a desire to bring down once and for all the Islamist terror regime that is the primary source of chaos, terrorism and wars against Israel and across the region. The collapse of the regime would greatly ease the disarmament of Hezbollah and the dismantling of its political power in Lebanon, leave Hamas and Islamic Jihad without financial backing, and likely also lead to the downfall of the Houthi regime in Yemen.

The 12-day war last June exposed the weakness and vulnerability of the radical regime in Tehran and its inability to protect its facilities and senior officials. At the same time, it created a rare opportunity to move toward toppling the dictatorship. That opportunity was not seized, in part due to the lack of American cooperation on the issue, even though the US carried out a limited strike on the Fordow nuclear facility. According to one senior security official, another key point in persuading the Americans will be Iran's involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war. Removing Iran from that equation would reduce the Russian threat to Europe's security.

Beyond the military option

How could this be done? One possible course is military action, designed to deliver another severe blow to the regime, but at a significant cost to Israel. IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir hinted this week that Israel may need to act against Iran again. At a ceremony marking the change of head of the Planning Directorate, Zamir said: "At the center of the IDF's threats stands the campaign against Iran. The campaign against Iran concluded with significant achievements. Our enemies once again felt the reach of the IDF's long arm, which will continue to strike wherever required, on near and distant fronts." Iran's foreign minister responded that Iran is well prepared for an Israeli attack.

A military move will likely be necessary in any case, but Israel's approach holds that it should be leveraged alongside aggressive action on other fronts.

Iran's economic situation is deteriorating by the day. The local currency, the rial, is hitting record lows; poverty is deepening; many educated Iranians are leaving the country; electricity is available only for a few hours a day; and fuel at gas stations is rationed. The water crisis is also worsening, with reservoirs closing and tap water in large parts of the country reduced to a trickle. At the same time, internal unrest is growing, even as the regime seeks to suppress it through force and brutality, imposing internet restrictions to curb its spread.

The US and Western countries could impose far harsher sanctions than those currently in place, including a complete shutdown of oil exports and a sweeping embargo on dual-use goods that aid missile development and the weapons industry. Such economic pressure is intended, first and foremost, to force concessions from the regime, both on the nuclear program and on ballistic missiles and the export of terrorism. These are demands Washington has emphasized mainly over the past year, and which Tehran has so far rejected.

Within the regime itself, voices are already being heard, including from President Masoud Pezeshkian, warning of economic and social collapse, driven in part by severe infrastructure failures in water and energy, and urging compromise. For now, these voices are being drowned out by the hardline stance of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Stronger economic pressure could change his calculus.

Actively toppling the regime would also require assisting internal Iranian opposition forces, in order to generate domestic pressure and destabilization. Such steps would at the very least force the regime to turn its attention inward, and at a more advanced stage, with external support, could lead to its actual overthrow.

The post Israel prepares dossier to convince Trump on new Iran strike appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Netanyahu is expected to lay out the threats Israel faces and the possible courses of action, including with regard to Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. For dessert, if he does his job properly, he will remind his host that Egypt is systematically violating the peace treaty and playing a double game not only with Israel but also with the Americans.

Trump, for his part, will likely tell Netanyahu that his own military is fighting as well. In neighboring Syria, US forces carried out a wide-ranging airstrike on Saturday. At almost the same time, the US Navy seized an oil tanker that had sailed from Venezuela. This was another step in tightening the American stranglehold on the dictator who rules there, Nicolas Maduro.

Trump has taken these offensive actions while repeatedly declaring that he has no interest in wars. In this term, as the whole world knows, he sees himself as a global peacemaker. But Venezuela, he says, is flooding the US with lethal drugs, leaving no choice but to work toward toppling its president.

As for Syria, a soldier loyal to President Ahmed al-Sharaa, who remains affiliated with the Islamic State terrorist organization, killed three Americans there last week. Trump did not direct his anger at the Syrian president, his new friend. Instead, he sent the US Air Force to vent its fury on the Islamic State's renewed activity in Syria's desolate regions.

These developments, particularly given their timing, greatly ease Netanyahu's task. Start with Syria: Trump would like to reach some form of arrangement between Israel and the al-Sharaa regime. In theory, Israel would like that as well.

However, when "three American patriots," as Trump described them, are murdered on Syrian soil, Netanyahu will not need to labor the point about instability there. If Trump is forced to act in Syria, 10,000 kilometers (about 6,200 miles) from Washington, to protect his country, then all the more so Israel, right next door, must preserve its freedom of action there. It is that simple.

The same logic applies to Venezuela, which is also a friend of Iran. If Trump rightly defines drugs shipped to his country from 5,000 kilometers (about 3,100 miles) away as a threat, what would he say about Iranian cruise missiles stationed just 1,500 kilometers (about 930 miles) from Jerusalem?

The answers are obvious, and that is why Netanyahu will likely not need to deploy his famed powers of persuasion. Senior administration officials are already convinced. Consider the clear and important remarks made on Saturday by Marco Rubio, Trump's secretary of state and national security adviser, regarding Gaza's future.

"Everyone wants peace. No one wants to go back to war," Rubio said. But he made clear that if Hamas, a terrorist organization, is ever in a position to threaten or attack Israel, there will be no peace. He said it is impossible to persuade anyone to invest in Gaza if there is an assessment that another war will erupt in two or three years.

Rubio said the focus must be on the types of weapons and capabilities Hamas needs in order to threaten Israel, and that these should form the basis for defining disarmament. He stressed that if Hamas in the future launches rockets, kills Israelis or, God forbid, carries out another terrorist attack like the one on October 7, there will be no peace. Who would invest in rebuilding a place that will only be destroyed again in the next war, he asked, adding that this is why disarmament is critical. The secretary of state also said that no move would be taken without Israel's consent.

There is not an Israeli who would not sign on to Rubio's statement that "disarmament is critical." That is true for Gaza, for Hezbollah, and for every other challenge. The Americans were the first to understand that.

The post Will Washington align with Jerusalem? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Since the end of Operation Rising Lion, intermittent reports have pointed to heightened readiness within Iran's strategic systems in anticipation of a possible escalation with Israel. While this preparedness has not yet led to renewed hostilities, it should not be dismissed lightly, particularly as it reflects anxiety and concern in Tehran about another round of fighting, and above all the possibility that Israel could once again take Iran by surprise.

Contrary to the prevailing perception, Iran's leadership is not eager for war. This stems largely from fears over the consequences of a conflict fought on Iranian soil. Tehran has long preferred to have others fight its wars for it, sparing the regime from direct confrontation, especially at a time when its strategic situation is problematic and it faces significant challenges that threaten regime stability.

That said, one of the main lessons Iran appears to have drawn from Operation Rising Lion is that it must not be caught off guard again, even if it has no interest in fighting right now. As a result, the primary trigger for another confrontation between Iran and Israel appears to lie in the danger of miscalculation: a scenario in which Iran assesses that Israel is about to attack and therefore opts to strike preemptively.

In an effort to avoid sliding into war, Tehran seems to be using heightened alert levels in its strategic systems to send a message to Israel about its readiness for confrontation, primarily as a means of deterrence should Israel be contemplating an attack. In this way, Iran is trying to dispel some of the uncertainty surrounding a potential Israeli strike and avoid the need to initiate an attack itself.

The central problem is that as Iran continues to rebuild its capabilities, Israeli threats also intensify. In the absence of a direct "red line" or communication channel between Israel and Iran that could help defuse tensions, similar to the hotline that once existed between the Soviet Union and the US, the likelihood of escalation increases every time Iran concludes that Israel may be on the verge of attacking.

Against the backdrop of statements by Israel's leadership on the Iranian issue, it is likely that the sense of unease in Tehran will only deepen over time, along with the growing risk of miscalculation.

The post One miscalculation could spark the next Israel-Iran war appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

According to the report, Iran has rebuilt its ballistic missile production capabilities and is now manufacturing missiles at a pace and scale that could pose a significant challenge to Israel. Although Iran's production infrastructure was severely damaged during the campaign against it last June, foreign assistance, primarily from China, has enabled Tehran to resume large-scale activity, with the aim of producing about 3,000 missiles a month.

Such quantities would severely strain Israel's air defense systems, prompting Jerusalem to consider another strike to neutralize Iran's capabilities before they are operational. The report also said Israel is concerned that Iran has resumed activity at its nuclear facilities, which could again become targets, despite claims by both Trump and Netanyahu that they had already been destroyed.

Five fronts

The Iranian front is only one of five expected to dominate the talks. Netanyahu is expected to push it to the top of the agenda, while Trump will seek answers on the other fronts as well.

In Syria, Trump wants to advance a security agreement with the government of Ahmed al-Sharaa, which is demanding that Israel withdraw from territory it seized last December. Israel has repeatedly made clear that as long as the situation in Syria remains unstable and the intentions of the new government are unclear, it will maintain its presence in the Syrian Golan Heights and on Mount Hermon. Trump will have to choose between Israel's security interests and those of his favored partner al-Sharaa, who enjoys active backing from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In Gaza, Trump wants to move ahead with Phase II of the agreement, which would include the deployment of forces in the Rafah area as a step toward demilitarizing and rehabilitating the Strip. Israel is currently tying any progress to the return Staff Sgt. Ran Gvili, the last Israeli hostage in Gaza. In Washington, however, there is growing doubt that Israel would allow the process to move forward even then. US officials believe Israel is looking for pretexts to derail the deal and return to fighting. They were angered by an Israel Defense Forces strike west of the Yellow Line on Friday, just as they voiced open displeasure last week following the killing of senior Hamas terrorist organization official Raad Saad.

Differences also extend to Judea and Samaria, against the backdrop of violence by far-right activists. Under pressure from moderate Sunni states, mainly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, the administration is concerned about declared plans to establish new communities there and about the potential erosion of the status quo on the Temple Mount. Trump, who had hoped to announce a breakthrough in Israel's relations with Saudi Arabia and the broader Arab world by the end of the year, is now focused on preserving the status quo, a difficult task given that Israeli policy is also driven by domestic political considerations in an election year.

The fifth front is Lebanon, where Trump has expressed support for Israel's tough stance against Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed terrorist organization. Late last week, another meeting was held in Naqoura between Israeli and Lebanese representatives, but it failed to significantly narrow the gaps between the sides. Israel has also provided Washington with intelligence on a long list of Hezbollah violations that the Lebanese government has ignored, including cooperation between the Lebanese Armed Forces and Hezbollah.

A senior official said Saturday that Netanyahu will have to maneuver among all these fronts and may be required to make compromises on some of them. The Americans, he said, are seeking to reduce the number of active combat fronts, while Israel wants to keep all its options open. For now, IDF operational plans are on hold until after the meeting. Barring an unexpected development, a major escalation on any front appears unlikely in the immediate term.

The post Iran and Gaza expose growing Israel–US gaps appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

This week, both Iran and Israel marked six months since the war, a milestone that allows for an assessment of the operation's achievements, which senior Israeli officials have described as a "victory."

There is no doubt that Israel achieved highly impressive results in this campaign. Senior figures in Iran's security leadership were eliminated, alongside leading nuclear scientists. The Israeli Air Force achieved full control of Tehran's airspace, enabling it to strike Iran's missile launch systems severely. All of this, of course, made it possible for Israel, together with the US, to inflict serious damage on the enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow, as well as the conversion facility in Isfahan.

However, these operational successes did not translate into a true strategic achievement, because from Tehran's perspective, Iran did not actually lose the war. In Iran's view, it not only managed to continue launching missiles until the final day of the fighting and stood firm against Israel and the US, but Israel also failed in what Tehran perceived as an attempt to topple the Iranian regime. Even if this was not the declared objective of the campaign, Iran interpreted Israel's actions, particularly the strike on Evin Prison and Basij headquarters, as moves aimed at regime change, in line with statements made by senior Israeli officials on the matter.

For Iran, this is not merely rhetoric for the record. The understanding in Tehran is that the country stood firm during the war, and the leadership's ability to present the conflict to the Iranian public as one directed against the Iranian people themselves ultimately strengthened the regime. As a result, the leadership sees no reason to change its security strategy.

This reality, together with Iran's understanding that another round with Israel is only a matter of time, is driving Tehran toward a conventional arms race, with an emphasis on rebuilding its missile array while, in its view, implementing the lessons of the previous campaign to improve its capabilities. Moreover, in the nuclear arena, despite the severe damage to nuclear sites that prevents Iran from returning to industrial-scale enrichment that brought it to the threshold of military-grade enrichment, the knowledge that exists in Iran, combined with centrifuges that were not damaged and nuclear sites such as "Mount Kolang Gaz" south of Natanz, enable it at some point in the future to resume enrichment in a way that would allow it to take the enriched material already in Iran, including 408 kilograms enriched to 60 percent, and enrich it to military grade.

It is true that the campaign against Israel exacerbated the Iranian regime's challenges, which already include a series of unprecedented difficulties such as drought and a severe economic crisis. But the regime continues to maintain firm control over the population, even easing enforcement on issues such as wearing the hijab in order to prevent the reemergence of mass protests. The regime's central problem is its dependence on sanctions relief to improve the country's economy. At present, however, it cannot reach an agreement with the US administration, which assumes that the regime's weakness will ultimately force it to agree to relinquish enrichment and limit its missile program.

The improvement of Iran's capabilities on the one hand, and Israeli threats on the other, combined with the currently low likelihood of an agreement between Washington and Tehran, significantly increase the probability of another war between Iran and Israel. Against the backdrop of Iran's proven ability to recover, particularly in the missile field, the question arises: what can actually be gained from a new round of fighting? This is especially relevant given that the ability to strike the regime itself has proven problematic, particularly in the absence of an Iranian opposition capable of taking control of the country.

Moreover, every day that passes without a diplomatic agreement that restricts Iran's force buildup significantly erodes Israeli achievements. Iran's supreme leader has appointed experienced figures to replace those who were killed, and Tehran is currently pursuing Russia and China in an effort to acquire new capabilities in air defense, missiles, and perhaps even nuclear technology.

Even if the unimaginable were to happen and the Iranian regime were to collapse, there is no certainty that this would be a positive development. On the contrary, such a scenario could prove particularly problematic, primarily because the most organized and powerful force in Iran today is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In the event of a collapse of civilian rule, there is a real risk of a military takeover in Tehran and the establishment of an even more hardline regime, with fewer checks and balances than the current one. In any case, hope is not a strategy, and policy toward Iran cannot be based on the assumption that the regime will collapse. Despite the many challenges it faces, the regime has demonstrated impressive resilience over the years, in part due to the absence of a significant, organized opposition.

Ultimately, it is precisely the success of the "Rising Lion" war that necessitates renewed Israeli thinking on the Iranian front. If even after nearly ideal "starting conditions" Israel is effectively back to square one, it is difficult to see how a policy based on repeating the same actions while expecting different results would serve Israel's interests. Moreover, future confrontations with Iran are likely to be more complex and more difficult, and there is no certainty that they will yield achievements beyond those already attained in "Rising Lion."

The post Iran is already preparing for the next war with Israel appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.