An Israeli writer highlighted the joint American and Israeli scenarios for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue, in light of the “maximum pressure” policy led by U.S. President Donald Trump against Tehran.
Political analyst in Maariv newspaper, Ran Adelist, stated that the Iranian nuclear issue is part of a complex game involving military threats, diplomatic maneuvers, and media leaks.
He pointed out that despite the verbal escalation, military options remain limited due to restrictions on U.S. support and fears of far-reaching consequences. At the same time, “Israel” faces increasing international pressure for transparency regarding its nuclear capabilities.
Regarding the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, Adelist referenced comments made by Dan Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to “Israel,” during a security conference where he predicted an Israeli attack on Iran within this year.
He explained that such an attack would require U.S. support, especially regarding bunker-busting bombs and aircraft capable of carrying them, which the Trump administration, as well as the Biden administration, have refused to provide.
On the issue of pressure tactics and media warfare, Adelist pointed to media leaks such as The Wall Street Journal report, which indicated that “Israel” is considering attacking Iranian nuclear facilities, suggesting that the “window of opportunity” is narrowing.
The political analyst believes these leaks are aimed at pressuring Iran to accept a new nuclear deal that is better than Obama’s agreement, rather than continuing to develop its nuclear program.
“Donald Trump prefers diplomatic solutions and calls for negotiations rather than military escalation, but Benjamin Netanyahu has continuously used threats for years to position himself as Israel’s protector, without taking actual military actions due to military and political constraints.”
Adelist warned that rising tensions could lead to disastrous decisions if any party perceives an existential threat. He noted that Netanyahu describes the situation as “a war for existence,” which increases the likelihood of unexpected actions being taken.
