The military commentator for Israel’s Channel 13, Alon Ben David, said that in the absence of any reliable metric capable of predicting the decisions of US President Donald Trump, whom he likened to a reality television producer reshaping the world, all eyes have turned to every nautical mile covered by the American aircraft carrier on its way to the Arabian Gulf.
Ben David added that despite this caution, it is difficult to imagine that the American military buildup against Iran will end in nothing. He considered such a scenario possible, but said it would be difficult to market even for Trump as a success.
He noted that the events of last Wednesday night once again demonstrated that the United States does not excel at executing high-quality operations quickly. According to him, the Americans had a ready-made operational plan that was shared with other parties, but it was insufficient and failed to produce a decisive outcome, a reality Trump himself recognised.
Ben David pointed out that Trump conducted a series of phone calls with regional leaders, including the Israeli occupation prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and received the same response from all of them: these steps would not be enough to bring down the Iranian regime.
He added that Netanyahu informed him that the occupied state was also not well prepared for defence. He described claims that Netanyahu was the one who halted an American attack as exaggerated, likening them to an attempt to pin responsibility for the US president’s hesitation on the Israeli prime minister.
Ben David explained that while the skies over the occupied state were filled with dozens of fighter jets that night, Trump chose to reconsider his course and enter a waiting phase. This came as protests inside Iran were suppressed and began to fade, while Iran’s Supreme Leader opened a personal line of communication with Trump, holding him responsible for the killing of demonstrators by the Revolutionary Guard and the Basij forces.
He referred to a previous assessment by former US ambassador to the occupied state Dan Shapiro, who suggested that Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would not live out his natural lifespan. Ben David added that Khamenei might live until next week, but it is doubtful that he will celebrate his eighty-seventh birthday next April. He argued that eliminating him could constitute the swift, decisive blow Trump desires, allowing him to declare victory and leave Iran’s fate in the hands of its people.
Ben David noted that experts on Iranian affairs believe that eliminating Khamenei would not be sufficient to topple the regime, as it is more entrenched than any individual. However, removing a figure who has wielded absolute influence and made critical decisions for 37 years could have a profound impact.
He cited a Western source who lived in Iran for many years, estimating that removing the Supreme Leader could reignite protests. The source suggested that the Revolutionary Guard might seek to install another leader and then remove him, not necessarily Khamenei’s controversial son, Mojtaba Khamenei.
The same source added that the Revolutionary Guard has become more focused on controlling Iran’s economy and less committed to Islam and Shiite doctrine, describing it as pragmatic. He argued that any serious military threat could push it to make religious concessions in exchange for preserving its economic stability.
Under the heading of preparedness for defence, Ben David explained that a potential Trump decision to eliminate the Supreme Leader could mean weeks of waiting. He said Iran learned during the twelve-day war the dangers of remaining in command centres close to the surface, and that Khamenei and his circle now operate from deeper locations. This could delay any targeting decision until a suitable operational opportunity emerges.
He stressed that the occupying state must assume that any American attack on Iran would be met with a response, and that it is preparing for such a scenario. However, he emphasised that this response is not inevitable, pointing to the entrenched image within Iranian public and official consciousness of Israeli air force jets flying freely over Tehran.
Ben David added that some circles in the occupation state compare the twelve-day war to the Chernobyl reactor explosion, arguing that air sorties over Tehran exposed the weakness of the Iranian system and encouraged the latest protests.
He explained that Iran has renewed its ability to inflict damage on Israel. Despite not resuming uranium enrichment, it has returned to producing ballistic missiles at an alarming pace. Iran now possesses more than two thousand ballistic missiles threatening Israel, as was the case prior to the June war.
He noted that Iran lost dozens of launch platforms during the war, representing a current weakness, but it remains capable of firing barrages of dozens of missiles after shifting its tactics from targeting strategic objectives to indiscriminate shelling of population centres in an attempt to cause the highest possible human losses.
Ben David added that American media reported Netanyahu warned Trump that Israeli defensive capabilities have not yet recovered sufficiently to confront a new campaign against Iran. This warning did not prompt Washington to send additional defensive systems to Israel, but rather to Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
He pointed to the absence of THAAD batteries and Aegis equipped ships from the protection of the occupied territories at present. He also noted that the Iron Dome system was used during the war to intercept fragments of Iranian missiles, even though it was not designed for that purpose.
He explained that Israel continues to enhance Iron Dome capabilities and stockpile additional launch platforms, while Trump has decided to incorporate the Iron Dome project into his own initiatives. He recalled that the system was developed with Israeli technology and funding, with the United States later joining in financing its development.
Ben David concluded that this confrontation is not the occupation state’s battle, and that Trump is not waging it on its behalf. Rather, it stems from his desire to subdue a Chinese ally and send a warning message to Beijing, with a personal dimension added to it.
He warned that the occupation government should not volunteer to rush into this confrontation, cautioning that it may be dragged into it by force. The outcome, he said, would not be pleasant, even if it would inflict greater damage on Iran.
