Israel's Most Conclusive Victory since 1949
Tenacity is the most important virtue of national leaders at war, which allows them to press on with no assurance of victory, fending off tremendous political pressures to fold. Winston Churchill displayed this quality in 1940, when Paris and Western Europe had fallen and Germany appeared unstoppable.NYTs: Trump Blocks Israeli Strike on Iranian Nuclear Sites
As Israel fought a major, multifront war in October 2023, key U.S. officials encouraged domestic uproar against Netanyahu and worked to constrain him and even collapse his government. Netanyahu had to overcome calls and protests by Israelis and American Jews, as well as all the usual suspects in European capitals and almost every other world government incessantly demanding a ceasefire, not as a pause, but as an end to the war.
It is against this backdrop that Netanyahu's pure resolve must be understood. His tenacity was the only thing that mattered. Having withstood this unrelenting pressure over the course of a year, Netanyahu had maneuvered into a position where, in the second half of 2024, Israel was able to turn the tables and reshape the entire geopolitical picture
The Mossad and the IDF brilliantly wrecked Hizbullah with exploding pagers, booby-trapped field radios, and the elimination of senior Hizbullah commanders in a precision strike that left the group totally paralyzed, nullifying its vast rocket arsenal. Because he had monopolized Hizbullah's command and control, Nasrallah's death shut down the organization.
As a consequence of Hizbullah's demolition, Iran's Syrian vassal, Bashar al-Assad, found himself defenseless, having long become dependent on Hizbullah and Iranian militias for manpower. With the fall of Assad, and with the IDF in control of the Gaza-Egypt border, the Iranians lost the ability to rebuild Hizbullah and Hamas, giving Israel its most conclusive victory since 1949.
Israel's astounding technical prowess and the fighting spirit of its military are, of course, integral to this victory. But it couldn't have happened had Netanyahu not held out against an unfriendly American administration and an accompanying assortment of authoritative figures and institutions, as well as howling mobs in Israel and around the world that demanded a ceasefire and the Israeli prime minister in handcuffs.
Israel had planned to strike Iranian nuclear sites in May but was waved off by President Trump in recent weeks in favor of negotiating a deal with Tehran to limit its nuclear program, according to administration officials. Israel had sought to set back Iran's ability to build a bomb at a time when Iran has been weakened militarily and economically. Almost all of the plans would have required U.S. help.Seth Mandel: The Leak Was the Whole Point
Earlier in April, Trump informed Israel of his decision that the U.S. would not support an attack and discussed it with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington. Trump made clear to Netanyahu that he would not provide American support for an Israeli attack while the negotiations were playing out.
Israel has long planned to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, rehearsing bombing runs and calculating how much damage it could do with or without American help. But support within the Israeli government for a strike grew after Iran suffered a string of setbacks last year. In attacks on Israel in April, most of Iran's ballistic missiles were unable to penetrate American and Israeli defenses. Air defense systems in Iran were destroyed, along with facilities to make missile fuel. Hizbullah, Iran's key ally, was decimated, and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria cut off a prime route of weapons smuggling from Iran.
Inside the Trump administration, some officials voiced concerns about the Israeli plan, including Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence; Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; and Vice President JD Vance.
There is still significant debate within Trump's team about what kind of agreement with Iran would be acceptable. If the talks failed, Trump could then support an Israeli attack, Vance said.
That latter point is one reason Israel reportedly ordered attack plans to be redrawn such that the mission could be launched before Kurilla’s exit. Gabbard’s isolationist leanings and Vance’s incoherent FDR-style cynicism toward allies are now the dominant ideological strands in Trump’s Cabinet, and the president nixed the strike plans.
Kurilla wasn’t the only reason time is of the essence. Last year, Israeli retaliatory attacks on Iran reduced Tehran’s air-defense systems to rubble. The nonproliferationists are open to the idea of taking advantage of this situation, which makes any U.S. involvement in strikes significantly less dangerous while (likely) permanently ending the nuclear threat from Iran, a Mideast client state of China and Russia.
The divestors don’t want this outcome. They don’t see Iranian nuclear proliferation as much of a threat, and they are comfortable with Iranian hegemony over our allies and over the region’s shipping lanes. This was President Obama’s approach as well—to empower Iran and weaken the Saudis and Israel so that a magical balance-of-power would emerge and keep the Middle East on its equilibrium, likely with a cascade of nuclear proliferation throughout the region. Although encouraging this nuclear cascade in the Middle East is an act of apocalyptic stupidity, presidents (and Congress) do like being given excuses to kick the can down the road.
And kicking the can is exactly what this is all about. Trump has been convinced to try his hand at negotiating with Ayatollah Khamenei, who will walk away from the table as soon as Iran’s defenses are in better shape.
Along those lines, part of Israel’s rushed plans to strike Iran—the ones intended to be launched while Kurilla was still around—included further demolishing Iranian defenses. If that isn’t paired with bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, it will at least buy the West some more time to do so by widening the window of opportunity.
That’s where the New York Times article comes in. The detailed leaks are most likely the Gabbard faction’s attempt to delay even that kind of attack by telling the Iranians what to expect. It’s hard to see this as anything other than the director of national intelligence enabling U.S. and Israeli intelligence to be put in front of an enemy state.
The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play to more or less help Iran torpedo American action. That’s the intent, anyway. Whether it succeeds might depend on whether Walz and Hegseth find their voices and their spines.
