Peloni: With Trump’s diplomatic initiative in play, the notion that Israel would gain US support in attacking Iran was not realistic, and the simple reality is that Israel needs US support, if not during an operation against Iran, certainly during the aftermath to help deal with the expected missile barrage. While Trump made known his own efforts to re-engage with the Mullahs, Bibi afterwards made his own Red Lines crystal clear: Iran must not be allowed to maintain its nuclear program. And on this point at a minimum, Trump and Bibi are completely in sync. This fact has been made certain for all in the aftermath of the critical missteps and corrections made by Witkoff in recent days.
Notably, when, more likely than if, US negotiations fail with Iran, Israel must act to end Iran’s nuclear program, with or without US support. But it would be better with US support, as the fallout would be less catastrophic and the success of the operation will be greater.
Israeli opposition leaders criticize PM Netanyahu for empty threats against Iran
Donald Trump (Photo By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0)
Israel had concrete plans to strike the Iranian nuclear program as soon as next month but was stopped at the last moment by U.S. President Donald Trump, according to a report published Wednesday by the New York Times
The authors of the report include Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, who has often received leaked information from within the Israeli security services. They spoke with multiple unnamed officials briefed on Israel’s secret military plans and confidential discussions in the Trump administration.
According to them, Israeli security officials had created plans to strike Iranian nuclear sites in May, aiming to set back the weaponization process by at least a year, and were optimistic the U.S. would approve the plans.
The strikes would have been carried out by the Israeli Air Force. However, the expected fall-out of such a dramatic attack is expected to involve the U.S. military, as Iran is likely to retaliate against Israel as well as U.S. troops in the region.
Trump threatened last week to use military force if nuclear talks fail. “Israel will obviously be very much involved in that – it’ll be the leader of that,” he said.
Israel’s security establishment has mulled over potential attack plans against the nuclear program for years.
Most experts estimate that Israel’s planes and munitions are not powerful enough to destroy all the regime’s nuclear sites, some of which are located in hardened bunkers buried deep under mountains.
Effectively destroying all the sites would require heavy bombers and the largest bunker-busting bombs the U.S. has in its arsenal.
Netanyahu reportedly called Trump to discuss the strike plans on April 3, however, the president didn’t want to talk about the issue over the phone and instead invited Netanyahu to the White House.
There, he was told about the Trump administration’s surprise plans for the new diplomatic initiative with the Iranian regime, with Trump telling the prime minister that he wouldn’t support an attack in May while negotiations continue.
Last week, Trump sent CIA director John Ratcliffe to Israel to continue discussions about various options for dealing with Iran.
According to the NYT report, an initial Israeli plan envisioned a combined U.S.-Israeli attack in Iran, with Israeli commandos raiding nuclear sites on the ground while U.S. planes provided air cover.
However, the Israeli military cautioned that preparations for such an operation would not be completed until October, while Netanyahu reportedly wanted to strike earlier. This gave rise to another plan, including an “extended bombing campaign,” also with U.S. assistance.
The Israeli plans for attacking Iran have split the Trump administration, according to the report.
Tulsi Gabbard, the new director of national intelligence, presented an intelligence assessment warning that the recent military buildup, including a second aircraft carrier deployed in the region and several heavy bombers sent to Diego Garcia Island, could expose the U.S. to potential retaliatory attacks from Iran.
Other skeptics reportedly included White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Vice President J.D. Vance.
Vance was said to have argued that there was now a unique chance to make a diplomatic agreement, and that the U.S. could still support an Israeli attack if negotiations failed.
Thursday morning, a military source told Israel Hayom that the NYT report harmed diplomatic efforts by depriving Israel of the threat of a military option.
“It was clear to everyone that there were preparations for an attack here, but the publication this morning is very unusual,” said the source.
“We always prepare for everything. And this has nothing to do with this or that announcement. Who had an interest in leaking? Only the Americans.”
“The Israeli political echelon has always left the military threat as an available option, and now Trump is essentially making it clear that he is the boss,” the source added.
Following the report, Opposition Leader Yair Lapid criticized Netanyahu, noting that he proposed attacking Iran’s oil fields last October but the prime minister was “afraid.”
“Eliminating the Iranian oil industry would destroy its economy and ultimately bring down the regime,” Lapid wrote on X.
National Unity leader Benny Gantz expressed support for strikes against the Iranian nuclear sites.
“The Iranian Regime are experts at stalling. The State of Israel must, and can remove the prospect of Iranian nuclear capabilities,” he wrote on ?.
“Coordinating closely with our great ally the United States, it is time to change the Middle East.”
Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett also advocated strikes against Iran while attacking Prime Minister Netanyahu: “Begin’s doctrine on the nuclear issue was to strike and destroy — that was the case in Iraq, and also in Syria. Netanyahu’s doctrine is to threaten, threaten, threaten, and then leak that he meant to act, but wasn’t allowed to.”
“This is another dangerous conception that must not blow up in our faces,” wrote Bennett, “There won’t be another opportunity like this.”
The next round of talks between the U.S. and Iran is scheduled for this Saturday.
@Laura
I find the antisemites to be well represented on every side of almost any given issue, and to this point, I would argue that the Ukraine debate is no exception.
It is logical, as he uses a distinctly different standard when discussing the Ukraine and Israel. This is what makes it antiesemitic.
As I noted, Zel is himself an antisemite, just as much as is Blinken and the rest of Joe’s Jews.
Because as fquigley notes, Gabbard is close to McGregor, and their perspectives are very much aligned as they use differing bases on which they judge Israel as guilty but Russia as innocent.
Keep in mind that Zelensky is Jewish. And regardless of whether you or I consider Zelensky to be any kind of a committed Jew, to the antisemites it makes no difference. He’s still Jewish. BTW, how did a discussion of Iran’s nukes morph into another Ukraine/Russia thread?
Is it logical that McGregor lies about Israel but is being honest on Ukraine?
I’m sure that’s true. But from my experience, I’ve mostly found the pro-Russia side to be anti-Israel/antisemitic while those supporting Ukraine tend to be pro-Israel.
No, I do not support modern day fascism. The Putin regime is modern day fascism which is what YOU support.
@fquigley
I was responding to your response to Laura, which I placed in the quote box. Since it included both yours and Laura’s comment, I think it is self explanatory why I responded to you both.
Yes, well, antisemitism has that affect on our opponents. Of course, as you well explain, our enemies are our enemies, but they aren’t necessarily wrong about everything. Indeed, if the basis of their lack of clarity on the issue of Israel is their antisemitic bend, it seems somewhat bizarre to suggest that they might be wrong about everything. Notably, if they were wrong about every old thing, their lack of honesty regarding Israel would not be antisemitic, as it would simply be par for the course in their string of unintelligible mutterings. It is the very fact that they are actually honest on every other topic which is exclusive to Israel, while preferring an altogether secondary and arbitrary standard on those subjects which are attached to Israel that belies their perfidious intentions against the Jewish State as being because it is the Jewish State.
Ironically, Mearsheimer expressed exactly this sort of double standard during his appearance last year on the UNHEARD podcast, stating clearly that he didn’t need to apply the same standard to Israel and Russia, and of course, he didn’t and doesn’t. The reason is that antisemitism requires a segregated level of sanity, a secondary reasoning, and an altogether complete distortion of reality, something which is ignored by those who try to pretend that these antisemites are wrong on Israel, so they must too be wrong on Russia and Ukraine, even if they aren’t.
By the way, I find it interesting that I responded to your retort to Laura, and your response to me was to claim I was ignoring you. Quite ironic, really.
Laura
“This is a bizarre take for a couple of reasons. One being what do modern day Ukrainians have to do with what took place in WW2. Russia was and still is a very antisemitic country. ”
Etc Etc
These things do not work in an algebraic manner
McGregor takes up a correct though superficial position on Ukraine…far from complete but correct. And he is correct on Ukraine. When he goes on to attack Israel I attack him.
What other way?
You on the other hand support modern day Fascism and support those who are Neonazis…as Peloni has pointed out to you and you as ever play your SILENCE card. You don’t reply don’t explain.What a hypocrite.
Peloni
I am not part of any discussion alongside Laura about isolationism. Nor will I ever be.
So I wonder why you put my name with Laura’s ranting peculiarly at the top of your piece. Doesn’t make sense to me.
I have never talked anywhere about that strange thing called “isolationism”
The point I made they say SOME truthful things about Ukraine and then as turning on a sixpence LIE about Netanyahu and Israel
A weighty point. (Which) You ignore.
But I am used to being ignored on Israpundit.
@Laura
As in all things, it is actions rather than either words or appointments which will demonstrate Trump’s trustworthiness with regards to Iran. Recall that the Mullahs’ nuclear program is not merely an Israeli problem. Consequently, I have little doubt that Trump will secure the defeat of a nuclear Iran, one way or the other. The greater concern I would argue would lie with the issue of Turkey, which does not pose a threat to the US, but does pose a significant threat to Israel. The notion that Israel would need to be reasonable was a worrisome reflection on the distinctions between how the US might deal with the relative threats arising from Turkey and Iran.
There are many pro Ukrainian advocates which disparage Israel as well, not least of all is Zel, himself, who has compared the Shoah to the Ukrainian war, who saluted a surviving member of a notorious Nazi Panzer division, and who consistently votes with Russia against Israel in the UN. And of course, Zel is just one example of the pro-Ukraine community which might be listed here. We have many enemies on both sides of the Ukraine war, and we should not beguile ourselves into thinking that pro-Israel sentiment is to be exclusively characterized by those on either side of that conflict, as it is an entirely arbitrary connection.
Israel had better prepare itself for complete international isolation because neither party in the US can be counted on to support it far into the future. I see the future of the GOP and it’s the likes of Vance, Gabbard and like-minded “influencers” like Bannon, Carlson et al. I didn’t want to say I told you so to those of you who trashed Niki Hailey, DeSantis and other more traditional Republicans last year and insisted Trump was the most pro-Israel. I’m sure Israel has plans for going it alone on Iran but if they don’t get the heavy bombs, then what?
Like I said, the same people who are anti-Ukraine are anti-Israel.
Good point and you’re quite right about them being pro-Iran/anti-Israel and actually not isolationists. Add Steve Bannon to that cabal. By Trump surrounding himself with such advisors makes Trump himself untrustworthy. After promising Mark Levin he would protect Israel, he might actually preside over its destruction.
The slimeball wing of MAGA are coming out of the woodwork and are now openly displaying their contempt for Bibi and Israel. I always knew this POS Bannon was bad news. The isolationist wing is becoming increasingly influential. Bannon pretends he’s protecting Trump, but he is enabling Iran and wants Israel destroyed. I’m sorry he didn’t rot in prison.
Steve Bannon Rips Netanyahu’s ‘Arrogance’ For Trying to ‘Force the Issue’ With Trump And Bomb Iran
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/steve-bannon-rips-netanyahu-s-arrogance-for-trying-to-force-the-issue-with-trump-and-bomb-iran/ar-AA1D8gip?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=4cbfafa0a34447349a85d1ef0e01c875&ei=26
@fquigley
@Laura
First of all, be careful who you call an isolationist. Gabbard and her ilk are themselves not isolationists. Recall that Gabbard was a Pal propagandist, and a TSS advocate going back more than a decade. An Isolationist would leave these matters to those who are involved in them rather than promoting one side over the other. Carlson too is advocating on behalf of the Pal controlled Eastern Churches which exclusively promote Pal propaganda at the expense of the truth which supports Israel instead. Indeed, at no time have the likes of Gabbard and Carlson called for the US to end their funding of Hamas, to disengage the billions of dollars frivolously sent to the teachers of terror in UNRWA, or to stop funding Hezbollah’s domination in Lebanon. Instead of being properly described as isolationists, I would argue that Gabbard and Carlson are also internationalists, but they prefer supporting terrorists while complaining about supporting the victims of terror. Something to think about.
Furthermore, Trump, himself, is not and never has been an isolationist in any form or fashion. This is why Trump’s foreign policy has him interacting with Russia, Iran and China today, even as he is bombing Yemen, arming Israel, and offering Ukraine a mineral deal which might provide them some actual value to the US.
Trump is and always has been an internationalist, but Trump’s brand of internationalism requires the US benefit from its internationalist policies, ie America First. So Ukraine’s need of US funds and missiles alone carries no weight with him, as Ukraine has ALWAYS represented an exclusive liability to the US ever since the US began involving itself in Ukraine, long before the US later funding the military adventurism in that quagmire of a state. In fact, Trump’s internationalist perspective is what led him to offer Zel the mineral deal, even as Zel bristled at having to provide the US with any benefit for the oversized largess which he has gained while being on the US dole for so long.
So Trump is no isolationist, but neither is the pro-Pal, pro-Iran Gabbard and her ilk. But Trump and Gabbard have opposing interests, which is why Gabbard tried putting the anti-Trump, pro-Iran Daniel Davis in as her top deputy, only to replace him with a similarly pro Iran replacement (whose name escapes me at the moment). To be honest, instead of terminating Davis’ appointment, Trump should have terminated Gabbard. Her position as head of the DIA is both sensitive and relevant to forming Trump’s policy, providing her opposition to his views a rather significant vantage, about which I wrote before she was confirmed.
@fquigley
I don’t think so at all.
Trump is and always has been an internationalist, not an isolationist, but Trump’s brand of internationalism requires the US benefit from its internationalist policies, ie America First. So Ukraine’s need of the US carries no weight with him, as they have represented an exclusive liability to the US ever since the US began involving itself in that quagmire of a state. This was Trump’s point of offering Zel the mineral deal with Ukraine, and it is also the reason why the mineral deal with Ukraine was so offensive to Zel who has been too long on the US dole without providing a reason for the very significant costs he has leveraged against the US, again with no clear benefit to the US.
One thing more to posit is that Gabbard and her ilk are themselves not exactly isolationists. Recall that Gabbard was a Pal propagandist, and a TSS advocate going back more than a decade. An Isolationist would leave these matters to those who are involved in them rather than promoting one side over the other. Carlson too is advocating on behalf of the Pal controlled Eastern Churches which exclusively promote Pal propaganda at the expense of the truth which supports Israel instead. Indeed, at no time have the likes of Gabbard and Carlson called for the US to end their funding of Hamas, to disengage the billions of dollars frivolously sent to the teachers of terror in UNRWA, or to stop funding Hezbollah’s domination in Lebanon. Instead of being properly described as isolationists, I would argue that Gabbard and Carlson are also internationalists, but they prefer supporting terrorists while complaining about supporting the victims of terror. Something to think about.
Iran is doctrinally committed to the destruction of the State of Israel, and Iran will never stop its nuclear program until they are stopped. History has proven that when Iran enters “negotiations” with non-Muslim countries they are practicing taqiyya––lying in the service of Islam. Perhaps if President Trump and his advisors read Islamic texts, they would understand this cruel reality and inconvenient truth. Every Iranian “negotiation” is a deceitful taqiyya stalling tactic that buys the Ayatollah the time required to complete its nuclear program. Period.
This is a bizarre take for a couple of reasons. One being what do modern day Ukrainians have to do with what took place in WW2. Russia was and still is a very antisemitic country. Putin just said the hostages should “thank” hamas for releasing them. Yet putin is the guy you support, himself a hamas supporter. Secondly, you yourself admit that McGregor, who is opposed to Ukraine and backing Russia, is an antisemite. The same people who support Russia in its war on Ukraine also oppose Israel. So its you with your support of Russia who is cutting the ground from under us and who is being illogical.
Laura and all who despair of Trump
“Clearly the influence of the isolationists like Tulsi Gabbard are winning Trump over to their point of view”
I do not think so. Or at least it’s not completely clear yet.
Gabbard is close to McGregor who I agree with on the Ukrainian Neonazis
But on Israel he and the whole crew of them… Well we know they’re Antisemitic
And they are weak because their position is weak and without logic on Iran and also islam.
McGregor needs to be challenged does he want another Holocaust?
Laura you have cut the ground from under us by your support for the Bandera Neonazis. Given that from you who would listen to YOU
You’re supporting the forces in Ukraine who endlessly murdered the poor Jews in the Holocaust.
Even from logic you haven’t a leg to stand on. Are you not aware of the history?
@Adam
Witkoff was picked by Trump, no one else.
I disagree with this. In fact, everything has changed under Trump, and in just two months. From the continued sorties being flown over Yemen, to the unfathomable armaments being supplied to Israel, to the arrest and deportation of leaders of the protest movement on US campuses.
To your point, things aren’t perfect, and Trump’s appointees stem from bizarre to unbelievable to exceptional. But things are definitely moving in the correct direction at the moment, despite this array of odd ball appointments which are not entirely exempt from Trump’s own support.
Or so I would argue.
By the way, thanks for reminding me of the quote from Rochester. I hadn’t thought of that in years. It perfectly displays the issue inherent in an established Deep State bureaucracy overpowering the will of the govt. While the will of the govt rested in the hands of an inherited noble, there might well be a value in such a shadow govt, but when the will of the govt is meant to reside in the hands of the people, such a shadow govt represents the ultimate iniquity.
Trump’s presidential actions remind me of what John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, the court jester of King Charles the Second’s court (Charles II 1660-1665), wrote in a short poem that he read aloud to the king: “We have a pretty wotty king. whose word no man relies on/ who never said a foolish thing/nor ever did a wise one.”
To which the king replied, “not so. My actions are those of my ministers. My word words are my own.” The same thing could be said of Trump: His bold words promisie nevolutionary changes to our corrupt United States government’s pol
policies,, while the “ministers” he has appointed. people like Witkoff, are doing the same old sh_t as they have under the past six or seven presidents, both Democrat and Republican. Actual government polies and behavior haven’t changed much despite Trump’s bold promises.
Trump is really f—–ing up. He has appointed and/or allowed the heads of the government departments to appoint large numbers of peple who are opposed to his publicly declared policies. Witkoff is an obvious example. Trump’s decsion to engage in diplomacy with the mullahs is an utter disaster. He has even withdrawn his demand that they end their nuclear weapons program. All he is requested is that they stop enriching their uranium and pltonium sores to weapns grade levels. For that modest concession he is will ing resume trade relations with Iran, What an _____hole____
@Laura
@keelie
I think Trump’s recent simultaneous assertions via the State Dept, his Press Secretary and Witkoff’s own reversal have made Trump’s position clear. Also, he isn’t acting on Israel’s behalf, but upon the behalf of the US. He recognizes, unlike his various predecessors, that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the US, not just Israel, and has made it clear that he will not accept Iran “tapping us along” towards getting a nuclear bomb, and that he will not permit them to keep their nuclear program in any form.
Preventing Israel’s attack on Iran next month gave him the opportunity to satisfy his own dovish supporters, but he would not have been so bold as to certify his intolerance to Iran’s continued nuclear program if he had any intention of not following thru on these threats. Or at least, so I would argue.
Laura… Absolutely…
But what seems to be missing from the various dialogues going around, is how much getting rid of the problem will affect the people of Iran/Persia. I would suggest a great deal for the better.
If Iran was still years away from a nuke like it was during Trump’s first term, perhaps placing economic pressure on Iran could be allowed to play out. But now it’s too late to use that option since Iran is very close to being able to enrich enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon. So much of the blame goes to the Biden regime for removing the economic pressure on Iran, even outright funding it during his four years. Trump has to decide what’s more important for his legacy. Is it to avoid the risk of a possible conventional war with Iran and therefore reneging on his promise to end wars and keeping us out of new ones or preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons on his watch as he also vowed. Not to mention the long term danger to America from a nuclear armed Iran.
Don’t make empty threats you have no intention of following through on. That makes matters worse. Iran now knows Trump seemingly has no intention of bombing Iran’s nuclear sites so there is no incentive for Iran to make a deal. Clearly the influence of the isolationists like Tulsi Gabbard are winning Trump over to their point of view. Now it’s a certainty that Israel will have to go it alone, which will be riskier than attacking Iran in conjunction with the US. But of course, the alternative of a nuclear armed Iran is a far greater risk. Even if Bibi has to wind up defying Trump, he’ll have no choice except to take out Iran’s nukes. This will be extraordinarily risky because if Trump turns against Israel, it will certainly be completely isolated, but again, a nuclear armed Iran will mean another holocaust. For Israel there are no good options, just less bad ones. Defying Trump is the lesser evil.