Despite cautious optimism over negotiations between Iran and the US and hopes for a new nuclear deal, Israel’s political leadership and most of its media have struck a starkly different tone: pessimism, and open preparation for failure and war.
A growing conviction that a confrontation with Iran is inevitable has taken hold among Israelis, with opinion polls showing broad support for military action.
Political leaders have reinforced the mood, citing what they call “Iranian intransigence” and warning that any agreement Washington might reach with Tehran would be a bad one.
Military officials have stressed the Israeli army’s readiness for all scenarios, while media reports describe intensified Israeli and US military movements inside Israel.
On Friday, Yedioth Ahronoth splashed a headline reporting that US F-22 fighter jets that arrived in Israel were placed on maximum alert on the runway at Ovda airport in the Negev desert.
The F-22 is among the most advanced aircraft in service and is not sold to any other military because of the sensitivity of its combat technology. The newspaper said 26 of the 45 jets produced for the US military had reached Israel.
Tensions have also been fueled by reports that the aircraft carrier Gerald Ford docked at an Israeli port, that several airlines suspended flights to Israel, and that large numbers of US troops are stationed at Israeli bases to operate US air defense systems deployed to the country in recent weeks.
Some analysts say the flurry of activity could be part of a coordinated US pressure campaign on Iran. But most argue the main aim is to prepare for negotiations collapsing, allowing a swift pivot from diplomacy to war.
Israeli media reported that the army has privately signaled unease over what it sees as a drift toward support for war without reckoning with the potential cost to Israel.
Israeli army spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin said there had been no change in public guidance.
In a recorded statement, he said the military was closely monitoring developments in Iran and remained on alert, ready to defend in full coordination with partners to bolster air defenses.
If there is any change, authorities will provide the public with an immediate update, he said.
Yedioth Ahronoth reported that the government is preventing the army from speaking openly about the risks. In a report two days earlier, it said the army was refraining from briefing the public under pressure from the political echelon not to disclose potential consequences.
The paper added that none of the army’s scenarios for the current year, including the possibility of a sudden round of fighting with Iran, envisioned a full-scale war with a major regional power like Iran, which has drawn lessons from the previous war.
It said Tehran is working to replenish its missile arsenal and restore its air defenses.
While 30 Israelis were killed in the previous war against Iran, the army is now warning that in a future conflict, scenarios such as an Israeli warplane being shot down inside Iran or greater destruction inside Israel, including the deaths of dozens of civilians, are more plausible.
It also cautioned against being dragged into a “war of attrition” lasting many months and imposing a heavy economic toll, with heavy missiles launched from Iran at a steady pace, disrupting operations at Ben Gurion Airport and striking the home front.
Media leaks continued on Friday, with reports that Israeli military chief of staff Eyal Zamir warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Hezbollah could join such a war, even though it stayed out of the previous conflict and recently said it did not intend to take part.
Zamir was quoted as saying Iran pumped $1 billion into the party’s coffers last year alone through smuggling operations, expanding its arsenal to include tens of thousands of precision missiles, long-range rockets, explosive drones and tens of thousands of fighters ready to confront Israeli forces if they enter Lebanon — a major challenge for Israel.
In contrast, Amos Harel, military analyst for Haaretz, struck a different note.
Entering a major, and possibly prolonged, war in the Middle East runs counter to US President Donald Trump’s instincts and everything he has advocated for years, he wrote.
Trump, Harel noted, has long argued that the United States became mired in costly wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, favoring swift, decisive outcomes that allow him to declare victory.
With US public support for war against Iran low and Americans more concerned about the cost of living and domestic turmoil, Harel suggested this may explain Trump’s reluctance to escalate his rhetoric and his repeated delays, while keeping a narrow opening for Tehran to step back and accept a new nuclear deal.
