Iran Rejects Ceasefire Offer as Israeli Hopes of “Regime Change” Fade

An expert writing in Yedioth Ahronoth revealed that Iran has “categorically rejected” an American proposal for a ceasefire, calling for lowered expectations regarding regime change and urging a focus instead on destroying Iran’s military capabilities at this stage.

The newspaper’s commentator, Nahum Barnea, stated that US President Donald Trump recognises that toppling the Iranian regime will not occur immediately and is therefore seeking to bring the operation to a swift conclusion. According to Barnea, an American official conveyed a proposal to Tehran through an intermediary to reach a ceasefire agreement either today or tomorrow. The Iranians, however, rejected the offer outright.

He noted that the Americans initially sought an operation lasting four to five days, aimed at returning an exhausted Iran to the negotiating table. According to one source, the intermediary was likely Italy, which transmitted the ceasefire proposal. Tehran refused the suggestion without hesitation.

Barnea wrote that despite what he described as intelligence and operational achievements inside Iran, the regime has not collapsed. It is currently being managed by a council of senior officials. He added that the Iranian system knows how to absorb the loss of high-ranking figures, warning that allied Shiite factions in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen could be compelled to join the campaign at full capacity, even at great cost.

The Israeli analyst further argued that the sinking of an oil tanker in the Arabian Gulf, the targeting of an aircraft carrier by a Houthi vessel, the killing of dozens of American soldiers at a military base, and rising oil prices could complicate Trump’s position domestically ahead of voters.

He stated that the attack on Iran does not enjoy broad popularity in the United States, neither among Trump’s opponents nor among his most enthusiastic supporters. Until only days ago, it was not on the agenda. “For Americans, war with Iran is a war of choice,” Barnea wrote. “Iran did not pose a real threat to them; even its nuclear project cannot justify war. Trump overlooks North Korea’s nuclear weapons, let alone those of India and Pakistan.”

Barnea continued: “Trump can end this operation in three ways that can be marketed as an achievement. First, delivering a powerful military strike that weakens the regime internally and externally. Second, reaching a surrender agreement on the nuclear file. Third, overthrowing the regime. The first option is realistic; the second less so; the third is President Trump’s great hope and grand gamble, but he understands he cannot achieve it immediately.”

He stressed that any state seeking to change the regime of another must occupy its strongholds with ground forces. “That is the meaning of ground troops,” he wrote, adding that Trump has no intention of sending soldiers into the streets of Tehran.

Regarding the current relationship between the United States and the occupation state, Barnea noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims the alliance in the present operation has reached an unprecedented peak. He added, “This is both true and false. True in terms of military cooperation; false because the alliance is not between Israel and America, but between Israel and the current president. Israel is portrayed as a state that dragged America into a war that was not its own, and even boasts of doing so.”

He concluded that for the United States, this is a war of choice, whereas for Israel, it is a war of necessity. Iran threatens Israel with missiles, armed resistance, and nuclear capabilities. It may not be an existential threat, but it is a very real one.

Barnea advised lowering expectations, noting that Israel’s previous attempts to change regimes in other countries failed. The attainable objective in this round, he argued, is the destruction of missile production facilities, launch platforms, and all aspects related to the nuclear project. “The greater the destruction, the better,” he wrote.