The military analyst for Yedioth Ahronoth, Ron Ben Yishai, has confirmed that US President Donald Trump’s decision on whether to attack Iran, and the timing of any such decision, remains unresolved. He noted that a set of fundamental questions will ultimately determine whether an attack takes place and when it might occur.
Ben Yishai explained that, whether Israel welcomes it or not, the reality is that President Donald Trump not only controls Israel’s national security agenda but also dictates to the Israeli government the steps it must take on sensitive security and political matters.
He added that Trump is aware these steps often place Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu under severe domestic political pressure and may even threaten the collapse of the governing coalition.
According to the analyst, this reality largely explains the absence of Israel’s full cabinet from any genuine discussion of core issues, foremost among them the Iranian file and the transition to the second phase of Trump’s plan relating to the Gaza Strip.
Ben Yishai stated that the most pressing question for the Israeli public concerns what will happen and when, should the United States launch an attack on Iran, or if Tehran initiates a pre-emptive strike that inflicts significant damage on Israel before the Iranian regime itself comes under direct attack. He added that these anxieties are reflected in concerns about the possible return of night-time air raid sirens and the repeated need to rush to shelters and fortified areas.
He stressed that all indications suggest no one has a clear answer to these questions, including President Trump himself. Experience shows that Trump often makes decisions at the very last moment, and even then they may not be final. Ben Yishai pointed out that the speech delivered by US Vice President J D Vance on Saturday also reflected this prevailing ambiguity. He noted that the Pentagon and US Central Command have received no orders beyond preparations, including assembling a large naval and air force capable of carrying out precise strikes against Iran if instructed, as well as preparing to defend US troops, bases, interests, and allies in the Middle East, including Israel.
He explained that these preparations, particularly those related to joint defence against any Iranian retaliatory attack using missiles and drones, were at the centre of discussions between the commander of US Central Command, General Brad Cooper, and the Chief of Staff of the Israeli occupation army, Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir. He suggested that the two sides also discussed intelligence cooperation in the event of a potential US strike, as well as the mechanism for Israeli Air Force participation in an offensive campaign should Israel come under attack.
Ben Yishai added that the absence of a final presidential decision has pushed the two military leaders to conduct what the Israeli occupation army describes as a strategic discussion of the situation and possible responses, with details to be completed later. He referred to reports in The Wall Street Journal that Trump had asked the Pentagon and Central Command to develop a plan leading to a clear outcome. However, he noted that what Trump means by a clear outcome remains undefined, both in terms of desired results and the nature of change sought inside Iran.
Ben Yishai outlined five key questions that form the core of the American decision-making dilemma. The first concerns whether it is possible to bring about the fall of the Iranian regime, or at least significantly weaken it, through a powerful, precise, and time-limited strike. The second relates to whether there are forces inside Iran, within the regime or among the population, capable of exploiting such weakness to overthrow the system or impose radical changes on its domestic and foreign policies. He cited the example of Venezuela, where the regime did not collapse despite targeting Maduro, and power instead passed to his deputy after prior assurances were given to the United States.
The third question concerns the feasibility of continuing to escalate the military threat for several more weeks in order to pressure the Iranian leadership into accepting US conditions for negotiations on lifting sanctions and ending the military threat. This includes the possibility that the Iranians, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, might opt for what he described as a heroic compromise, as they have done in previous phases.
The fourth question examines the usefulness of exploiting growing US influence in the Middle East, if toppling the regime through air strikes proves impossible, to carry out a strike focused on destroying what remains of Iran’s military nuclear programme, its ballistic missile and drone infrastructure, underground production facilities, and stockpiles. The aim would be to achieve what was not accomplished during the twelve-day war.
The fifth and most important question concerns the accuracy of US intelligence and its ability to achieve any of the proposed objectives, whether regime change or long-term damage to Iran’s military infrastructure. This also includes assessing the expected cost in terms of human casualties, destruction, and disruption to energy supplies for the United States and its allies.
Ben Yishai noted that Trump, by refraining from launching an attack two weeks earlier, lost the element of surprise and with it the ability to engineer a radical shift inside Iran. This included the possibility of targeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who at that time was protected within a complex network of deep and heavily fortified bunkers and tunnels, surpassing in strength those previously used by Hassan Nasrallah.
He added that Trump appears fully aware of these considerations. Trump has previously demonstrated a tendency towards careful deliberation and consultation before taking fateful decisions, and he does not hesitate to reverse course if he concludes that the costs outweigh the benefits. Ben Yishai cited what happened last Wednesday, when US aircraft were on the verge of taking off before the move was cancelled. He stressed that Trump does not want to pay the price of a prolonged operation in American soldiers’ lives and enormous financial costs. He still has the option of lifting the military siege imposed on Iran and returning to a diplomatic track through negotiations led by Steve Witkoff with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
In the same context, Ben Yishai emphasised that the Israeli public should be aware that the forces deployed by the Pentagon and placed under US Central Command are not yet fully operational from a professional military standpoint. He explained that it may take between one and three weeks to complete readiness, due to logistical support requirements and the need to gather initial intelligence.
He concluded by raising another question concerning the potential Iranian response. He asked whether the Iranian regime would seek revenge by attacking Israel, or limit its response to targeting US bases and interests in the region. He argued that current indicators suggest Iran does not want to attack Israel, given its awareness of Israeli air force capabilities and Israel’s enhanced defensive capacities coordinated with US Central Command and regional states. This, he said, makes it unlikely that Tehran would take such a step as long as it still hopes to survive and avoid giving Israel a pretext to expand its operations.
