“The Israeli political and security establishment”, Anna Barsky writing in Ma’ariv tells us, “are closely monitoring the dynamic situation in the US-Iran arena. However, there is no consensus … on the the direction in which Trump is heading; nor [even] whether the US is close to a decision - and if so, what its nature and timing [might be]”.
“According to the [Israeli security] assessment - and contrary to the public impression - the American decision is not final. Trump, according to this analysis, definitely is leaving the military option on the table; but he continues to hesitate regarding the price, risks and chances of success. According to them [the Israeli security establishment], Trump is a president who makes decisions in an unpredictable manner ... [His thought process] is linear, influenced by internal political considerations, image considerations and the cost-benefit balance that he identifies - at any given moment”.
This presentation coincides with Trump’s known predilection for short victories and a story that he can tell: “‘I struck, I declared: Now we’ll talk’. This is a scenario that does not topple the regime and does not solve the nuclear problem, but creates a political narrative”, Israeli security sources suggest, adding that there is not necessarily any rigidity to Trump’s ultimatum: ‘If they won’t negotiate, we’ll attack’. Rather, the threat is connected to the question of killing [and therefore is fungible]”.
This suggests a potential path for Trump to disentangle from his maximalist statements: ‘I threatened; the killing and oppression ceased’. Crisis over, Trump could say.
And the Iranians repeatedly emphasise that, on the other hand, a ‘symbolic exchange’ outcome would not lead to the end of a conflict but rather to the continuing ‘shadow of war’; increased insecurity and economic and political costs to Iran.
This entire Trump calculus on Iran has many moving parts beyond military strategies: