The lack of decisiveness regarding Iran, and Trump's fear: "The campaign has become political"

The campaign against Iran is being conducted in the shadow of a significant American consideration: how far is President Donald Trump willing to go to weaken the regime in Tehran, and what political price is he willing to pay for it. Uzi Dayan, former Deputy Chief of Staff and former Deputy Head of the National Security Council, believes that at the current stage, the United States is not aiming for a decisive victory over Iran, and that this conduct could have consequences for both the military campaign and Trump's political future.

According to Dayan, the key to understanding American conduct lies in the connection between the war and internal politics in the United States. As long as the campaign continues without a clear achievement against Tehran, Trump may find himself facing the claim that the United States is not winning.

"If Trump takes any kind of hit in the midterm elections, they will explain that he is losing the war," said Dayan, adding that if the president fails to present a significantly better situation regarding Iran, and in particular an offensive situation, he may pay a price for it in the elections.

At the same time, developments surrounding the Iranian nuclear infrastructure highlight the risk of leaving capabilities in Tehran's hands. Dayan addressed the issue of the nuclear material found in Syria from the Assad era and explained that such material does not disappear on its own. From his perspective, this is a lesson that Israel must also take regarding Iran: nuclear capabilities that remain on the ground could become a recurring problem in the future, and therefore one should not settle for only temporary damage to Iranian capabilities.

Dayan distinguishes between Syria and Iran and argues that the threat from Tehran is much broader. While he says Israel succeeded in stopping the Syrian nuclear project, Iran continues to pose a significant strategic threat, both due to its nuclear program and its missile capabilities.

"Iran is a completely different situation and it poses not only an existential danger to Israel, it poses a threat to world security," he said, while criticizing American conduct and claiming that the Americans "probably do not understand this or prefer to ignore it."

The struggle surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, according to him, also illustrates the limitations of current policy. Dayan argues that opening the shipping lane does not remove the Iranian threat, because Tehran is capable of threatening the region using coastal-to-sea missiles. Therefore, beyond action in the Strait of Hormuz, he proposes a broader strategic solution of creating a land route from oil countries through Jordan and Israel to Europe. At the same time, he warns that Israel must maintain an independent operational capability, even in the event that the United States chooses not to expand the campaign.

The significance for Dayan is that Israel cannot assume that Washington will decide the campaign for it. If the Iranian regime manages to recover and renew the nuclear and ballistic project, Israel must be able to act even without direct American support.

"We must maintain freedom of action because we need the ability to attack Iran, including as a preemptive counter-strike, even without the United States," he said.