Israel’s military is preparing for the possibility of renewed confrontation with Iran, but growing concerns within the Israeli security establishment suggest that a pre-emptive strike before the upcoming elections could trigger a wider conflict with consequences far beyond Israel’s control.
Although key decisions may ultimately depend on US President Donald Trump, one of the central concerns is that Tehran could interpret Israeli military preparations as indications of an imminent attack. Such a misunderstanding, combined with an isolated incident or inaccurate intelligence assessment, could be enough to ignite another regional war.
Yossi Yehoshua, military affairs editor at the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, warned that heightened military readiness on both sides could create the very escalation that each is attempting to prevent.
According to Yehoshua, Israel’s military alert level is rising as its armed forces prepare for the possibility of renewed fighting in the near future. Israeli defence officials are closely monitoring developments in Iran, where authorities are reportedly rebuilding military capabilities, reinforcing their forces and preparing for the possibility of another military campaign involving Israel and the United States.
However, Yehoshua stressed that Iran’s preparations for a potential confrontation do not necessarily indicate that an attack is imminent.
Netanyahu Reportedly Reluctant to Launch Another War Before Elections
In his analysis, carried in Arabic by Arabi21, Yehoshua argued that an Iranian attack was unlikely in the immediate future and that the situation did not justify another Israeli pre-emptive military campaign.
Instead, he identified miscalculation as the principal danger.
Based on conversations with sources within Israel’s military establishment, Yehoshua suggested that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has publicly stated that he does not intend to initiate a pre-emptive war, is also reluctant in internal discussions to launch another military campaign against Iran before the elections.
A central consideration is the difficulty of identifying a clear strategic achievement that would justify the costs of another war while delivering a tangible result in the limited period remaining before voters go to the polls.
Yehoshua noted that Khamenei had already been killed and suggested that a decisive blow against Iran’s nuclear programme could represent another major strategic achievement.
However, he argued that no comparable objective currently appeared achievable within a sufficiently short timeframe to fundamentally alter the strategic balance and provide Netanyahu with another clear accomplishment before the elections.
The absence of an immediate threat that could not be postponed for another two weeks further weakens the argument for initiating a new military campaign, according to his assessment.
A Limited Israeli Strike Could Become a Prolonged Regional War
One of Yehoshua’s central warnings concerns the assumption that Israel could launch a limited military operation, achieve its objectives and quickly return to normal conditions.
He argued that such thinking overlooks a fundamental limitation: Israel may determine how a military campaign begins, but it cannot independently determine how Iran responds or when the fighting ends.
Tehran could choose a large-scale retaliation intended to reshape the deterrence relationship with Israel and the United States.
Under such circumstances, an operation initially conceived as limited could develop into a prolonged confrontation.
The consequences, Yehoshua warned, could include damage to Israel’s home front, widespread disruption of economic activity, substantial military expenditure and the expansion of hostilities to additional fronts.
Such developments could severely affect the lives of Israelis and the functioning of everyday society.
With no immediate threat requiring urgent military action, he questioned whether the strategic benefits of another offensive could justify exposing Israel to these risks immediately before an election.
The question, he suggested, is not simply whether Israel possesses the military capabilities to initiate another confrontation, but whether doing so would produce an outcome proportionate to its potential costs.
Military Preparedness Does Not Necessarily Justify an Offensive
Yehoshua maintained that military readiness remains necessary in the face of what Israel considers the Iranian threat.
However, he drew a distinction between preparing for war and making a political decision to initiate one.
The ability to conduct a military campaign does not, by itself, establish the strategic justification for launching it.
Before taking such a decision, Israeli leaders would need to identify precisely what they intended to achieve, determine the likely costs and establish whether a credible path existed for bringing the campaign to an end.
These calculations become especially complicated when the anticipated response of the opposing side cannot be controlled.
At this point, Yehoshua argued, decisions taken by US President Donald Trump could prove decisive.
Trump’s Decision Could Determine Whether War Resumes
According to Yehoshua, the strategic equation could change if Trump concluded that American interests required military intervention against Iran.
Such a decision could be influenced partly by the security situation in Saudi Arabia and the kingdom’s concerns regarding Tehran.
If the United States decided to enter another large-scale confrontation, Yehoshua considered it likely that Washington and Israel would coordinate their military activities closely rather than conduct two separate wars.
However, considerable uncertainty remains over whether Trump would actually choose direct military intervention.
His decision could therefore determine whether the current tensions remain contained within a framework of deterrence or develop into another regional military campaign.
This places the future of the confrontation beyond the exclusive calculations of Israel and Iran, with Washington potentially exercising decisive influence over whether hostilities resume.
Hezbollah Could Open Another Front
Yehoshua also raised the possibility that Hezbollah would become involved if another major confrontation with Iran erupted.
He referred to the group’s participation during the previous round of fighting known as Roaring Lion, suggesting that Israeli military planners must account for the possibility of renewed involvement.
He cautioned against treating Hezbollah’s participation as a secondary consideration in assessing the possible consequences of another regional campaign.
Its entry could complicate an already unpredictable military confrontation and contribute to the expansion of hostilities beyond the direct Israel-Iran front.
For Israeli decision-makers, this possibility adds another layer of uncertainty to any proposal for a limited military initiative.
The Danger of Miscalculation Between Israel and Iran
Beyond the strategic debate over whether Israel should initiate military action, Yehoshua identified a more immediate danger arising from the behaviour of both sides.
Israel is increasing its military readiness because of concerns about Iran, while Tehran could interpret those same preparations as evidence that Israel is preparing to attack.
Iran, in turn, is reinforcing its own capabilities and military preparedness, actions that Israeli officials could view as signs of an approaching confrontation.
Although each side may be preparing to avoid being caught by surprise, the interaction between these defensive calculations could generate the conditions for escalation.
An isolated incident, an incorrect assessment, inaccurate intelligence or a military response interpreted as unusual could trigger fighting even if neither side had previously decided to begin a war.
Yehoshua warned that Iranian threats should not be dismissed, but neither should Iran’s military preparations automatically be treated as evidence that an Israeli offensive is necessary or urgent.
The distinction is particularly important when the risk of misinterpreting military intentions could itself become a cause of war.
Israel Must Weigh Strategic Gains Against the Cost of War
Yehoshua argued that Israel should remain prepared for renewed fighting while simultaneously examining whether any genuine strategic justification exists for initiating it.
The central issue is not merely whether Israel is ready to fight, but whether it has a meaningful strategic objective that cannot be achieved through another course of action.
He concluded that avoiding a military initiative in the absence of a clearly defined objective should not be interpreted as weakness.
Likewise, raising military alert levels does not necessarily mean that a decision to launch a war has already been made.
Ultimately, he suggested, the course of the confrontation will no longer be determined solely by decisions in Tel Aviv and Tehran.
Trump’s choices could also determine whether the confrontation remains within the boundaries of deterrence or develops into another regional military campaign.
The broader danger is that miscalculation by either side could encourage the other to launch hostilities first, believing that securing the initial strike would provide a military advantage.
Such a possibility could keep Israeli forces on maximum alert, while also raising questions about whether public statements by Israeli leaders should be understood solely as expressions of military restraint.
They could also form part of broader conflict-management calculations or strategic deception intended to conceal preparations for offensive action.
