Israel came close to striking Iran twice in recent weeks due to miscalculations and fears of a surprise Israeli operation, according to former Military Intelligence Directorate chief Tamir Hayman.
Recent Escalations and US Cooperation
Hayman said Iran’s preparations created a “coordination imperative” between Israel and Washington. He noted that recent near-escalations stemmed from miscalculation risks, which in turn strengthened military cooperation between the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and US forces.
US Influence Operations
US actions regarding Iran were already underway, Hayman added, and future steps could range from information and influence operations to cyberattacks, special operations, or even open war, depending on developments. He indicated that an American influence campaign is currently active, with unexplained reports, rumors, and videos emerging from Iran potentially being part of a cyber-based effort combined with local disruption and subversion.
Potential for Iranian Leadership Changes
Hayman pointed to scenarios once considered unlikely now potentially occurring within Iran’s leadership. These included both nationalist rhetoric and more significant shifts, such as a prolonged revolutionary period led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), potentially resulting in a temporary leader installed under a military dictatorship.
While a full-scale strike on Israel is unlikely as long as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei remains in power, due to his traditionally cautious leadership, a more daring IRGC-backed leader could change the strategic calculus.
Economic Pressure and Negotiations
Reviewing Tehran’s response to internal unrest, Hayman said economic relief efforts have failed and forceful crackdowns have been ineffective. He suggested negotiations with the United States could become the regime’s only viable option for easing economic pressure through sanctions relief, noting that talks were “not an absurd scenario,” particularly if Iran offered a dramatic concession on uranium enrichment.
Israeli Response Contingency
Hayman stated that any Israeli response would depend on the scope and nature of US action. He added that Iran had fully restored its missile production lines since the Israel-Iran conflict but had not yet upgraded them as originally planned, and is seeking Chinese assistance to expand its production capacity.
Arguments Against a New War
Arguing against a new war with Iran at this time, Hayman said such conflicts are costly and displace thousands of Israelis. He framed the strategic choice as either a regime change or, if unavoidable, a limited agreement to restrict Iran’s capabilities – though “right now, an agreement is a mistake,” he said.
He outlined low-probability but plausible scenarios, including a harsh IRGC-led military regime or a leadership change backed by external forces. More likely, he said, were internal reforms aimed at reasserting control over the population. The regime portrays internal upheaval as being driven by the US and Israel, encouraging Iranians to mobilize against outside threats.
Internal Unrest in Iran
Despite Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi’s claim that the situation in the Islamic Republic is “under total control,” Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf stated that the country was “fighting its enemies on four fronts” – economic, cognitive, military, and anti-terrorism. Videos obtained from Tehran showed protesters chanting, “Death to Khamenei,” during a funeral.
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
