This is a debate that has stayed with me. The year was 2003: Should the United States invade Iraq? A friend of mine, an American diplomat, strongly opposed the invasion. I argued that if the United States claimed to serve as the world’s policeman, it could not refrain from delivering justice to a dictator who abused his people, like Saddam Hussein, threatened global stability, and was planning to acquire nuclear weapons. This is what a superpower is supposed to do, I said. The diplomat argued that the United States did not know how to engage in nation-building, and that once the military mission was over, the administration would have no idea how to govern complicated Iraq. “After all the months of preparations for the war,” I wondered, “no detailed plan was prepared for the ‘day after’?”
He was right. The United States regrets the moment it entered that adventure. There is a consensus in public opinion that it was a terrible mistake. But I was also right. Iraq ceased to be a threat to Israel; the world’s policeman eliminated it, but at the cost of blood and money, and above all, at the cost of losing the energy to undertake similar missions. As early as 2003, I remember senior figures in our security establishment saying regretfully, “Why Iraq?” “Why not Iran?”
It is reasonable to assume that the United States still has no ability to build a new Iran. Nor does it have a detailed plan for overthrowing the regime. Donald Trump certainly understands this, and knows very well how deeply the American public dislikes prolonged wars in the Middle East. That was his campaign. Killing Khamenei would give him a convenient exit option from a prolonged-war scenario: We weakened the regime, removed the dictator, and we are offering whoever succeeds him the opportunity to learn from Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela’s vice president, Nicolás Maduro. She was part of that same regime but learned the lesson, and since his capture has been cooperating with the United States. And if the Iranian successor, Trump might say, does not learn the lesson — we will send the Lincoln and the Ford back for a second round.
In such a situation, Israel would have no choice but to agree to a ceasefire, even if it were not accompanied by a surrender agreement, including the removal of enriched uranium, a complete halt to enrichment on Iranian soil, and the dismantling of Iran’s ballistic capabilities. The truth is that Israel, too, has no interest in a war of attrition when there is no certainty that it will ultimately produce a genuine change of government and replace the ayatollahs with a regime friendly to the West.
Would Iran agree to a unilateral ceasefire if Trump simply declared, “We won,” and moved on? I do not claim to predict the Iranians’ moves, but assuming they do not lose touch with basic logic, it is reasonable to assume they would want to lick their wounds and, above all, stabilize the regime.
From Israel’s perspective, such a situation would leave Iran weaker in the short term, more deterred, and more vulnerable to protests and disintegration. Benjamin Netanyahu could claim, with a fair degree of justification, that under his leadership the Shiite axis had been significantly weakened and deterrence restored. The succession of assassinations and the extraordinary operations carried out by the IDF would leave a lasting impression on anyone considering challenging us.
At the same time, it must be said that enormous damage has been done to our relations with post-Trump America and with European countries. Netanyahu, with his eyes open, led the United States into war with Iran — a war most Americans do not want. The prime minister has completely identified himself with the least popular president in America in quite some time. Europe has yet to forgive Netanyahu for the way he fought the war in Gaza. As long as he and we enjoy Trump’s umbrella, we do not feel it. Once Trump weakens — perhaps as early as the midterm elections — it may look completely different. From Netanyahu’s perspective, that is such a distant future that there is no need to think about it.