Israel’s Final Moments and the “90th-Minute Battle”

Amid diplomatic efforts led by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to reach a “settlement” with the Houthis in Yemen and growing signs of U.S. preference for de-escalation in Gaza, Israel is accelerating its military operations. The launch of the first phase of “Gideon’s Chariots” signals that Tel Aviv views this as a last-ditch, decisive round in a critical confrontation.

This escalation is not a routine flare-up—it is part of a deliberate strategy being described in Israeli military circles as the “90th-minute battle.”

The term, now appearing in Hebrew military analyses, refers to a tactic of last-minute blitzing to secure the most ground possible before the window of opportunity closes—whether due to diplomatic pressure or emerging regional understandings that may undercut Israeli objectives.

What makes this tactic unique is its emphasis on speed and decisive action. Israel seeks to establish new “facts on the ground” that are hard to reverse or ignore in any future negotiations.

But a deeper question arises: Is this tactic born out of strength and confidence—or out of pressure and urgency amid rapidly shifting regional dynamics? And what are the potential risks of this approach?

Origins of the Tactic

The so-called “90th-minute battle” is not new to Israeli military doctrine. But its appearance now reflects a unique context. According to analyses published in Yedioth Ahronoth and Haaretz, Israel understands that U.S. negotiations with Iran and the Houthis are progressing faster than publicly acknowledged.

These negotiations—possibly involving eased sanctions on Tehran or security arrangements in the Red Sea—could eventually impose new constraints on Israel, such as “restraint” or even a halt to operations in Gaza before it reaches its publicly declared goals like “eliminating Hamas” or destroying its military infrastructure.

In this context, Israel is turning to what analysts call “creating facts under fire”—intensifying military operations to destroy as much of Gaza’s resistance infrastructure as possible, particularly the tunnel networks in Rafah, and carrying out high-profile assassinations of Hamas leaders. This could occasionally extend to Hezbollah as well.

The strategy also includes increased strikes against Iranian-linked targets in Yemen, aiming to present tangible “victories” that can be used as leverage both domestically and internationally before Israel is pressured to stop by Washington or global powers.

What Is Israel Afraid Of?

Israel’s concerns go beyond just the possibility of a ceasefire in Gaza. The deeper fear is that the U.S.-Houthi agreement could serve as a negotiation model for Hamas, Hezbollah, or even Iran.

Such a precedent would mean regional deals that bypass Israel altogether—diminishing its role as a central player in shaping regional security and political arrangements.

In Israeli security circles, this is viewed as a strategic threat. For decades, Israel has relied on its status as Washington’s closest ally in the region. But now, it fears becoming a mere “spectator” in the evolving regional landscape.

These fears are growing amid signs that the Trump administration may prioritize economic and geopolitical interests, such as securing Red Sea trade routes and reducing regional tensions—even at the expense of Israel’s military goals.

Additionally, internal political pressure is mounting. Any ceasefire without a clear “victory” would severely damage Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s standing, especially as he faces growing criticism over his management of the war. Netanyahu views continued military escalation as an opportunity to regain political credibility amid ongoing legal and political challenges.

Why the Urgency Now?

Four key developments are pushing Israel to intensify its military campaign:

1. 1. U.S.-Houthi diplomatic progress: Recent U.S. statements about “positive developments” in Yemen talks suggest the Red Sea front—critical for Israel strategically and economically—may soon be stabilized, limiting Israel’s pretext for escalation.

1. 1. Withdrawal of USS Truman: The U.S. decision to pull the aircraft carrier USS Truman from the region is seen in Tel Aviv as a signal that Washington is aiming to de-escalate and reduce military presence—thereby weakening American cover for Israeli operations.

1. 1. Domestic warnings of stagnation: Within the Knesset and Israel’s security establishment, voices warn that any military pause would give Hamas and Iran time to regroup and strengthen. These figures advocate using what little time remains to inflict maximum damage.

1. 1. Netanyahu’s political calculus: For Netanyahu, stopping the war without achieving a visible “victory” could be politically fatal. Amid growing domestic criticism, he views military escalation as key to improving his image and consolidating power.

What Is Israel Trying to Achieve?

Through the “90th-minute battle,” Israel hopes to secure both tangible and symbolic gains, including:

• • Destroying Rafah’s tunnel network: This network is the backbone of Hamas’ military capabilities. Its destruction would allow Israel to claim “mission accomplished” status in Gaza—even if that claim is far from accurate.

• • Demonstrating intelligence superiority: Targeted assassinations of Hamas or Hezbollah leaders aim to restore faith in Israel’s intelligence capabilities, which suffered a blow after the October 7 attacks.

• • Putting pressure on Trump: Escalation may corner the U.S. administration—forcing it to either support the offensive or appear to abandon its closest ally, giving Israel leverage in future negotiations.

• • Reasserting regional deterrence: By striking targets in Yemen, Israel aims to signal to Tehran and its allies that it remains the dominant military force in the region.

Who Holds the Final Say?

Despite Israel’s high-paced operations, the ultimate decision to end the war does not rest solely with Tel Aviv. That power is shared with Washington, which remains the dominant actor capable of enforcing a ceasefire—or prolonging the fight—through its military and diplomatic backing.

Israel doesn’t want to end the war yet, but it knows time is not on its side. Unable to deliver a convincing strategic victory, it is resorting to the tactic of a last-minute “victory,” even if such a win is illusory or short-lived.

But this approach carries serious risks. It could open new fronts instead of closing existing ones. In the end, the situation remains fluid—its outcome depends on Israel’s ability to manage its escalation without stumbling into a broader war it may not be prepared for.