Words instead of missiles: Despite the "attack that didn't happen," there is no reason for disappointment in Israel

A stream of mockery and verbal blows from the regime's mouthpieces in Tehran has replaced the kinetic strikes that the United States planned to launch against Iran over the weekend. "Everyone now understands that this is fake news; Donald Trump has backed down," tweeted Mohammad Marandi, who previously served as an advisor to the Iranian negotiating team, while the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps hastened to categorically deny the existence of any agreement to open the Strait of Hormuz.

"Iran begs for a deal every day, and then flips," is how Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently described the shifts in the regime's position. Now, similar voices are being heard directed at President Donald Trump himself.

It is difficult to determine what motivated him to freeze the military action at the last moment. Some argue that this should not be seen as an expression of hesitation and that it is a calculated and built-in element of the strategy he is conducting against Tehran, at least until the midterm elections in the United States conclude. Other sources attribute this to the intense pressure from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, and Oman, which feared the consequences of expanding the fighting and hastened to stop him. In Iran, on the other hand, they saw this as confirmation of media reports about a shortage of interceptors and American fears of military entanglement. The bottom line: the American president is perceived as someone who really does not want this. At least not at this time.

From Israel's perspective, despite the grinding tension and the familiar sense of déjà vu, it is not certain that the disappointment with Donald Trump's decision is truly justified. Continued massive pressure on Tehran, with the military option still hovering in the background, could deepen the economic crisis in Iran and fuel internal unrest — processes that serve the ultimate, albeit undeclared, goal: regime change from within. An intense but time-limited attack, carried out before the conditions for it have been created, even if it leads to the destruction of infrastructure and significant capabilities, could end with the parties returning to the negotiating table and arrangements that would allow the regime to recover.

History teaches that arrangements that end wars of attrition stop the fire, but usually do not eliminate the source of the threat. When the enemy's military and political system remains intact, the arrangement freezes the war more than it ends it.

Of course, pausing the fighting is only considered if it can be guaranteed that the Iranians will not use the time to break through to a nuclear bomb, or to fundamentally change the balance established following Operation "Lion's Roar".

For now, the Iranians have not only adapted to the new reality, but their self-confidence has increased. The regime assesses that its stamina, at the current level of pressure being applied to it, is greater than that of President Donald Trump in the face of the constraints he is under. The regime is rebuilding the command and control systems that were damaged in the fighting and is increasing its operational options, both directly and through proxy organizations.

The sense of hubris that now surrounds the regime's palaces could actually work against it and push Donald Trump to attack sooner than he planned.

Following the events of the weekend, Israel should assume that the chances of a powerful attack have not only not decreased, but have actually increased. The same applies to Israel's active involvement in the fighting with Iran and its proxy organizations. The challenge of maintaining readiness in a reality of ongoing uncertainty is not simple. The prolonged war, it seems, has prepared us all for this as well.

Do not give up on interdiction

It is not only permissible, but mandatory to be skeptical regarding agreements on disarming Hamas and demilitarizing the Gaza Strip. Just two weeks ago, in his first speech as head of the Hamas political bureau, Khalil al-Hayya vowed to continue the path of his martyr leaders — "until the liberation of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Palestine" — and made it clear that the movement would not abandon the "path of resistance." In Israel, there should be no hesitation about whether to believe this commitment or the talk about disarmament and ending military activity.

There will be those who argue: everyone was skeptical about the return of the hostages as well, and at the end of the day, reality proved them wrong.

There are two answers to this. First, the concession on hostages, who were held from the start to exert pressure and achieve other interests, is not the same as the concession on the "path of resistance," which is the essence and purpose of the organization's existence. Second, Hamas has also learned something from the concession on the hostages.

In any arrangement, Israel must not give up on two components: control of the territory in accordance with the current division and freedom of interdiction action.

The main tool that currently limits Hamas's ability to build its military power is Israel's freedom of interdiction action. As long as they are under constant threat from Israel, Hamas terrorists are forced to conduct their lives in tunnels and hiding places, with a low profile and while taking security measures that complicate their conduct.

And not only that, to avoid a surprise against us, it is vital to prevent the enemy from having the ability to organize for it. Stopping or significantly reducing interdiction actions will give the enemy the confidence and sense of immunity that it lacks and that are vital for its organization.

The Israeli system did well when it carried out a series of attacks over the weekend against terrorists, infrastructure, and weapons depots in the Gaza Strip. This was a clear signal of its opposition to giving up the freedom of interdiction action. The real test of Israel's determination in this regard will be its persistence in doing so.