According to Iran researcher Dr. Raphael BenLevi, the blow that Israel dealt to Tehran not only thwarted a serious strategic threat, but heralds a profound change in the status and role of the Jewish state. The tendency to explain global conflicts solely in military and economic terms, he says, misses the ideological war between West and East and between oppression and freedom.

Published in  Israel Hayom, July 04, 2025.

Over the past year, the Iranian regime and Hezbollah have suffered unprecedented blows at the hands of Israel, which has severely damaged not only their military capabilities but also the nature of the strategic relationship between them.

Senior officials on both sides who were involved in security decision-making and managing the strategic relationship between Tehran and Hezbollah were eliminated one after another. A newly released archive photo published in Iran on June 26 shows Ali Shadmani and then-Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah together, revealing another chapter in this strategic alliance, one that will likely never return.

According to reports from Iran, Shadmani was killed during the war, after being appointed as the successor to Gholam Reza Rashid, who was eliminated in Israel’s opening strike. Shadmani had served as head of Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters, the body responsible in routine times for threat assessment, force-building direction, and readiness assessment, and in wartime, for managing the entire military campaign under the direct authority of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

His death was officially reported in Iran only on June 25, following reports that he had been seriously wounded in a targeted strike about a week earlier and did not recover.

Shadmani had a long and distinguished military career. He joined the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) upon its founding in 1979 and commanded the Ansar al-Hossein Division during the Iran–Iraq War (1980-1988).

He went on to hold a series of senior positions, but the significance of the photo with Nasrallah lies in the period during which it was likely taken, after 2005. From 2005 to 2012, he held a senior role in the Operations Directorate of Iran’s Armed Forces General Staff, including during the Second Lebanon War in 2006. From 2012 to 2016, he headed the directorate and later became the deputy coordinator of Khatam al-Anbiya Headquarters before ultimately taking command.

In this role, Shadmani oversaw the integration of all Iranian operational plans across the various arenas. Therefore, the very fact that a meeting between him and Nasrallah took place, now publicly revealed, adds another layer to the deep strategic relationship between Tehran and Hezbollah.

While it was known that Nasrallah regularly met with Quds Force commanders, Khamenei’s advisors and Iranian foreign ministers, it now emerges that he also held meetings with senior officials in the Operations Directorate of Iran’s General Staff. This connection underscores his elevated status within the Iranian regime’s decision-making processes and Tehran’s operational planning.

Nasrallah served as a strategic linchpin not only for Hezbollah but also for the Iranian regime and its management of relations with the organization. His assassination on September 27, 2024, marked a profound rupture for both Tehran and Hezbollah, which, in the current war, chose to remain on the sidelines.

In doing so, the organization made a historic decision that sharply contradicts Nasrallah’s past declarations that Hezbollah would join any war if Iran were attacked.

The Iranian regime must now undertake a complex process of rebuilding, not only of its military command structure, but also of its cooperation with Hezbollah.

The loss of Shadmani and other senior commanders who were eliminated by Israel, including Saeed Izadi, head of the Quds Force’s Palestinian branch (reportedly also responsible for facilitating Iranian support to Hezbollah), and Behnam Shahriyari, head of the Quds Force smuggling unit, presents a serious challenge.

Added to this are the deaths of Quds Force commanders for Lebanon and Syria, Mohammad Reza Zahedi, and his successor, Abbas Nilforoushan, in previous months.

In such circumstances, reconstructing the Iran–Hezbollah “Axis of Resistance” appears especially daunting, particularly in light of Israel’s clear determination to prevent any attempt to rebuild Hezbollah’s military capabilities in the foreseeable future.

Published in JNS, June  30, 2025.

As Israel celebrates Jerusalem Day – marking the historic return of Jerusalem, the capital of the ancient Kingdom of David, to full Jewish sovereignty after two thousand years – it is crucial to recall Iran’s openly declared ambition to destroy Israel and “liberate” Jerusalem, with the Al-Aqsa Mosque as its symbolic centerpiece. This aspiration was vividly illustrated in a provocative poster published in May 2020 by the office of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, under the chilling title “The Final Solutio” – a term borrowed directly from Nazi Germany’s lexicon.

The poster depicts armed terrorists from various Iran Quds Force-backed militias gathering triumphantly in Jerusalem, having supposedly succeeded in eliminating Israel. Visible among them are operatives from Hezbollah, Hamas, the Fatemiyoun Brigade, and Iraqi Shiite militias holding images of Jamal Abu al-Mohandes, the Kata’ib Hezbollah commander killed alongside Qassem Soleimani in January 2020. These militants operate under the ideological influence of Khomeini, Khamenei, Soleimani, Abu al-Mohandes, [late Hamas founder] Ahmed Yassin, and [late Hezbollah number 2] Imad Mughniyeh, whose portraits adorn their vehicles.

In May 2021, about a year after the release of that poster, then-Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah introduced a new strategic equation: Any Israeli action deemed a “violation of Jerusalem” would justify a regional war. In a speech delivered just days after the end of Operation Guardian of the Walls, Nasrallah signaled his intent to join a future multi-front campaign against Israel, drawing upon the emotionally charged religious symbolism of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa. He declared:

“Israelis must understand that whoever harms the sanctities of Islam will not face only the resistance in Gaza. The new equation after the last confrontation is that anyone who attacks Jerusalem or Al-Aqsa will face a full-scale armed resistance… Gaza surprised its allies and enemies alike by entering the battle in response to actions in Jerusalem… The historic shift in the ‘Sword of Jerusalem’ campaign was that Gaza went to war to defend Jerusalem—not itself.”

Khamenei’s poster was neither symbolic nor coincidental. In a speech delivered in November 2023, six weeks after the outbreak of the current war, IRGC Commander Hossein Salami called for a repeat of the October 7 massacre – this time in a more sophisticated fashion and launched from the east, south, and north – with the aim of destroying Israel. For decades, Iran’s regime has used “International Quds Day” (instituted by Khomeini on the last Friday of Ramadan) to incite crowds in Tehran, Gaza, Beirut, Baghdad, Sana’a, and elsewhere to chant, “Death to Israel.”

The October 7 massacre carried out by Hamas served as irrefutable evidence – if any was still needed – that Israel must take its enemies’ threats with absolute seriousness. Moreover, it has become increasingly clear that Tehran has been actively developing a detailed operational plan to destroy Israel for at least the past seven years. In 2018, senior Iranian official Hossein Amir-Abdollahian – who later served as foreign minister under President Raisi and was killed alongside him in a 2024 helicopter crash – declared that Iran had a concrete plan to implement Khamenei’s 2015 directive to wipe Israel off the map within 25 years.

In addition to addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel must consider the threat of a mass-casualty assault aimed at its destruction with the gravity it demands. In fact, late Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar described the future attack with remarkable clarity in a speech to thousands in Gaza on December 17, 2022. He declared: “We will come at you, God willing, in a roaring flood. We will come at you with endless quantities of rockets. We will come at you with a limitless tide of fighters. We will come at you with millions of our people, again and again.” Given this, Israel must regard Salami’s call for a more advanced and comprehensive massacre attack as a credible threat. This is especially true in light of reports that, during the war, circles in Tehran considered the possibility of launching ground invasions of Israel from Syria (prior to former president Bashar Assad’s removal) and from Jordan.

Israel must work systematically to deny its enemies both the capability and the motivation to carry out such plans. This requires a proactive and offensive strategy targeting the Iranian regime and its regional proxies. Simultaneously, Israel must complete the construction of its border with Jordan and take advantage of diplomatic opportunities in the region to prevent Iran from entrenching its presence and expanding its influence. Such opportunities may arise in light of significant regional changes, foremost among them the ousting of the Assad regime in Syria and the weakening of Hezbollah’s position and power in Lebanon.

Another major lesson from the current war is the urgent need to strengthen Israel’s defense independence by developing an advanced domestic military industry. Reliance on weapons systems, ammunition, and equipment from foreign powers – especially the United States – leaves Israel vulnerable, often awaiting critical supplies or facing constraints tied to political considerations that do not necessarily align with its national security interests. Israel must create a robust and sovereign industrial and technological base, enabling rapid, precise, and independent responses to security threats – guided by a clear strategic imperative: Protecting its citizens, even when that requires decisions made without external approval or support.

Published in I24, May 26, 2025.

The battle over a nuclear deal with Iran will not only determine the fate of the bomb – it will shape the regional order for years to come.

While shifting geopolitical realities in the Middle East have backed Iran into a corner, paradoxically, the current negotiations are working in its favor. As the US administration hesitates on its approach to Tehran, Iran continues to systematically enrich uranium, advance its weapons group, and acquire critical knowledge that could enable it to produce a nuclear weapon, should its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei choose to give the order.

Despite sanctions, economic pressure, and international isolation, Iran is achieving significant gains. Its defensive and offensive capabilities are improving and defeating it in a future military confrontation appears increasingly difficult. This is precisely why Israel and the United States must adopt a firm and uncompromising diplomatic posture – without delay.

A weak agreement – something akin to a “JCPOA 2” – would work against American interests. Such a scenario would buy Iran time to recover economically, bolster the regime’s domestic position, and enable it to rehabilitate the “Axis of Resistance,” after being severely weakened by Israeli actions and thus restoring Tehran’s national security. Even if the deal were to temporarily restrain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it would still allow Tehran to maintain its status as a nuclear-threshold state, while further destabilizing the region. Eventually, when the time seems ripe, Iran would likely move ahead with its operative plan to destroy Israel.

In light of this, Israel should urge US President Donald Trump to revive the ultimatum he issued against Iran in March – which has since been abandoned – and bring it back to the forefront. A natural window for this would be June, during the upcoming session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors, where a critical decision is expected on reinstating sanctions via the “snapback” mechanism.

Simultaneously, Israel should lead a broad public diplomacy campaign aimed at the US administration, thought opinion leaders, and the American public, emphasizing a core message: A lenient nuclear agreement will weaken the US, endanger its allies, and throw a lifeline to a radical ideological regime. Conversely, a strong stance toward Iran will reinforce America’s regional influence, encourage more nations to join the Abraham Accords, and pave the way for a more stable geostrategic reality.

This effort must also address concerns in the US about being dragged into a costly regional war. Even if military conflict does erupt, Iran is in no position to engage in serious hostilities against the US and Israel. Its proxies are weakened, and the Houthis – the only remaining active outpost – cannot be counted upon to provide the necessary support. Moreover, an Israeli strike, especially with US backing, would significantly impair Tehran’s offensive and defensive capabilities.

Given Iran’s technological, intelligence, and military inferiority compared to the US, it is doubtful that its leadership would choose to enter a full-scale war, particularly at a time of eroding public support and a deteriorating proxy network. Tehran’s decision-making appears driven by survival instincts, making it unlikely that the regime would yield to hardliners like Revolutionary Guards Commander Hossein Salami, who call for direct confrontation.

A targeted public diplomacy campaign could both undermine appeasement efforts in Washington and present Iran with a firm and unequivocal position, forcing it to choose between escalation, which could threaten the regime’s survival, or full acceptance of American demands. The latter would mean drinking the “poisoned chalice,” akin to Khomeini’s painful but calculated decision to end the Iran-Iraq War in 1988. As with Iran’s limited response to the assassination of Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani in 2020, there remains a significant gap between Tehran’s operational capabilities and its willingness to use them.

Even if Israel ultimately has to accept a deal focused solely on the nuclear issue, it must reach a clear understanding with Washington on a comprehensive strategic plan to weaken Iran’s regional proxies and missile program. These issues need not necessarily be part of the negotiations with Tehran. Instead, they can be addressed through other means, including kinetic and cyber operations, which will convey unequivocally that both Israel and the US are committed to drawing red lines on terrorism and missile proliferation. This would signal a new strategic reality to Iran and force it to reconsider its offensive ambitions in these arenas.

Diplomacy must rise to meet this moment of decision. The outcome of the nuclear negotiations will not merely settle the question of the bomb – it will determine the future shape of the regional order. Israel must therefore act intensively with the US to ensure it can influence the proposal presented to Iran and help define the path forward in the ongoing struggle against Tehran.

Published in I24, May 11, 2025.

The Iranian explosive charge, discovered near Kibbutz Alumim and carried by Hamas terrorists during the brutal onslaught of October 7, is not a random artifact – it is yet another direct piece of evidence of Tehran’s involvement in the October 7 massacre.

Iran has never concealed its broad support for Hamas. On the contrary, it proudly boasts of arming, training and funding the terrorist group’s infrastructure for years. Supreme Leader Khamenei openly praises the massacre but attempts to shirk responsibility. Yet as more evidence surfaces, including Hamas documents seized by the IDF during fighting in Gaza, Iran’s denials ring increasingly hollow.

The documents reveal that the Quds Force, particularly its Palestinian branch led by Saeed Izadi, was actively involved in planning a wide-ranging terror campaign against Israel. Ultimately, Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar proceeded without final coordination with Tehran or Hezbollah, thus averting an even more lethal combined assault.

Arms, training and planning: Iran’s fingerprints on Gaza terror

The explosive charge found near Alumim is not merely a piece of ordnance, it is a symbol of Iran’s direct involvement in one of the worst atrocities in Israel’s history. Tehran has blood on its hands not only for its part in the massacre itself but also for its long-standing investment in building up Hamas’ and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s military wings.

Iran’s deep involvement is evident in every aspect of Gaza-based terrorism: from smuggling Sayyad sniper rifles used by Hamas and Islamic Jihad to kill IDF soldiers, to years of training for terrorists, to the diverse weaponry it has provided, including drones and rockets, either smuggled in or manufactured locally with Iranian know-how. Iran has also helped develop Hamas’ vast tunnel network across the Gaza Strip, allowing it to conceal hostages and mobilize fighters undetected.

Despite this profound role in orchestrating the October 7 massacre, Tehran has yet to face proper international condemnation. President Donald Trump continues to claim he wants to solve the Iranian nuclear challenge and help Iran become a “successful country.” But the international community must not allow the regime to obscure its direct responsibility. Israel – and the world – must treat Iran not only as a sponsor of terrorism, but as an active partner in crimes against humanity.

Israel’s public diplomacy teams must use this Iranian explosive device, along with documented meetings and correspondence between Saeed Izadi and Hamas leaders, to go on the offensive against Iran. These materials should be presented at international forums and diplomatic summits attended by Iranian representatives, clearly laying out Tehran’s significant role in one of the most barbaric attacks in modern history.

It must be remembered that during this assault, hundreds of people – including babies, children, women and the elderly – were kidnapped. Horrific crimes were committed, including systematic rape, mutilation, and the incineration of entire families, infants in their cribs among them. The world must recognize Iran’s culpability and act accordingly.

At the same time, the presence of this Iranian-made charge highlights why it is essential for Israel to maintain full security control over Gaza. Israel must do everything in its power to prevent the reestablishment of Iran’s deadly smuggling routes into the Strip. Only firm Israeli control can block their return, and protect Israeli citizens from recurring threats.

Published in  Israel Hayom, May 06, 2025.

The Trump administration is deploying an unprecedented amount of US military might to bases in the Middle East, near Iran and Yemen. The military buildup is backed by “maximum sanctions” against Iran and an explicit US deadline of two months for a “deal” to end Iran’s nuclear bomb and ballistic missile programs.

Without a deal, President Donald Trump has said, “there will be bombing.” US National Security Advisor Mike Walz has specified that Iran must “hand over and give up” all elements of its nuclear program, including missiles, weaponization, and uranium enrichment.

Iran is clearly nervous, which is a good thing, but also defiant, which was to be expected.

“Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Khamenei said last month that Tehran would not be bullied into talks with the US by “excessive demands and threats,” and he rejected direct negotiations. He threatened a “harsh blow” if the US attacks Iran.

The commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard air force this week made the Iranian threat more explicit: “The US has 10 bases and 50,000 troops in the region… If you live in a glass house, you shouldn’t throw stones,” he warned. And Khamenei’s adviser and former parliament speaker Ali Larijani emphasized that if the US bombs Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iranian “public opinion” will pressure the government to “change its policy” and pursue nuclear weapons.

But of course, Iran is rapidly approaching full nuclear military status already, with uranium enrichment and bomb-assembly facilities buried in underground bunkers – irrespective of Trump’s threats.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran has enriched uranium to almost-bomb-ready levels (60% and 84%, which are very close to the 90% level necessary for a nuclear weapon), with its stock of refined uranium hexafluoride growing by 92.5 kilograms in the past quarter alone to 274.8 kilograms. By IAEA standards, this is sufficient for an estimated six nuclear weapons, with the final sprint achievable within months.

NO COUNTRY in the world has enriched uranium to 60%, as Iran has, without building nuclear weapons – so Tehran’s intentions are clear. Getting the Islamic Republic to abandon this path (as well as its massive ballistic missile array) will be difficult if not impossible. I am doubtful that even the emerging credible threat of US (and Israeli) military action will do the trick.

Ultimately, Washington will have to act on its threat, and this will have to be soon.

To this end, the US has deployed fighter squadrons, stealth bombers, munitions, and Patriot and THAAD air defense batteries to the region along with two aircraft carrier strike groups. US military cargo flights into the region rose by 50% last month, with at least 140 heavy transport aircraft landing in Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan.

An A-10 ground-attack squadron was deployed to Jordan, stealth F-35s were sent to Saudi Arabia, and at least six B-2 stealth bombers have been stationed on the Indian Ocean island base of Diego Garcia – which is roughly a third of the US Air Force’s B-2 fleet.

(Diego Garcia previously was used as a launch point for bombing missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The island lies about 4,000 kilometers from Iran and Yemen – close enough to support a large-scale strike on either, while remaining beyond the reach of their drones and ballistic missiles.)

And US Central Command chief Gen. Michael Kurilla was in Israel this week once again for meetings with senior Israeli military officials.

THERE IS more to be done. Richard Goldberg of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington has published a manifesto for “maximum pressure” on Iran that goes far beyond “maximum sanctions.” This includes an end to all sorts of waivers and licenses that facilitate Iranian world trade, rigorous sanctions enforcement (mainly targeting Iran’s oil trade with China), multilateral sanctions on third-party countries (including European countries) that facilitate Iranian banking and Iranian-backed radical Islamist NGOs, and more.

Barak Seener of the Henry Jackson Society in the UK argues for active “destabilization” of the Iranian regime. This includes cyberattacks on Iran’s critical infrastructure, as well as targeting Iran’s oil infrastructure including refining and processing facilities, as well as domestic distribution pipelines and terminals. He also advocates the targeting of IRGC bases and personnel on Iranian or foreign soil.

Gregg Roman of the Middle East Forum has published a comprehensive strategy for democratic transition in Iran, which needs to be put in place even before a strike on the belligerent country. This involves an aggressive information campaign, amplifying internal pressures backing opposition ethnic groups, leveraging regional cooperation networks, dismantling Iran’s regional proxy network (something that Israel already is tackling), and transition planning with post-regime scenarios.

These efforts should include exposing the regime’s repression and human rights abuses and carrying out political warfare against the regime: Constant criticism of its economic failings and brutality, support for Iran’s neighbors if it threatens them, and aid (overt and covert) for efforts by Iranians to protest a regime most of them clearly loathe.

IN A RECENT, thoughtful Foreign Affairs essay, Elliott Abrams reminds us of the overall purpose of all this over Trump’s four-year second presidency: To create a Middle East where Washington’s friends are far stronger and its enemies far weaker than ever before. Israel’s recent successful actions against Hamas and Hezbollah (Iran’s proxies) and its crushing blows on Iran’s air defenses create an opportunity for Washington in this regard.

“Keeping Iran and allies off balance”

“The United States now has a chance to keep Iran and its allies off balance,” Abrams wrote. “Because the only true solution to the problem of the Islamic Republic is its demise, the United States and allies should mount a pressure campaign on behalf of the Iranian people – who wish for the regime’s end more fervently than any foreigner.”

Even if Trump decides to negotiate a bit with Iran before moving to military action, Abrams asserts that it is possible to engage in practical negotiations with an enemy state without losing the sharp edge of ideological combat.

Recall US president Ronald Reagan’s relations with the Soviet Union. “An American president can talk to an authoritarian adversary without sacrificing moral clarity and without dropping support for people yearning to be free of a repressive regime and often demonstrating in the streets, despite the risks,” Abrams said.

“The United States should always view such negotiations as a tactic in the long struggle for a peaceful Middle East – a goal that cannot be reached until the Islamic Republic is replaced by a government that is legitimate in the eyes of the Iranian people and that abandons its terrorist proxies, its hatred of the United States and of Israel, and its desire to dominate other countries in the region. Until that day, the military presence of the United States must not diminish…”

To which I add that Trump’s plans for “winning” in the global struggle against China and his hopes for a reset in relations with Russia depend to a great extent on proving his mettle in a confrontation with Iran.

If the president’s bluster against Tehran ends up with another Obama-style soft deal that just kicks the Iranian nuclear can down the road, then Trump’s presidency is finished, at least in international affairs. He will never be the “transformational” president with “historic” achievements that he so explicitly wants to be.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, April  5, 2025.