Posts
[What the Israeli media do not say is that the January riots were instigated by Mossad and the CIA. Many of the people killed were working with Mossad.]
'The Decisive Victory That Never Was' -- A definitive Israeli account
Conflicts Forum edit of strategic perspectives from leading Israeli political & security commentators (translated from the Hebrew press), 28 April 2026
Below is a key analysis published in the Hebrew press by two leading Israeli commentators — Nahum Barnea and Ronen Bergman. Their analysis constitutes a definitive Israeli narrative of events leading to the war on Iran —
“At the end of 40 days of fighting, the operation that was supposed to decide the war with Iran did not take place. Everyone involved in it in Israel is left with a sense of missed opportunity. The question is why it did not happen …”.
“The plan to topple the [Iranian] regime was a central component of the overall war plan, the heart of the plan”.
“Both the political leadership – [Netanyahu] – and senior figures in the security services were freed from the fear of execution. Anyone capable of blowing up thousands of beepers in a single stroke feels they can do anything”.
“The plan aimed for a war in June 2026. By June, preparations would be complete and conditions ripe”.
‘After 100 hours of air operations, the second phase of the plan to topple the Iranian regime was set to begin — first a ground invasion from Iraq by Kurdish militia. Commanders said they intended to reach the Kurdish region of Iran and then, once Iranian Kurds had joined them, to launch a mass march on the capital, Tehran’.
‘Then came the phone call from Ankara … Trump ordered the invasion to be halted hours before the Kurdish forces were due to cross the border … Israel complied’.
“The United States and Israel entered the conflict without properly assessing the [Iranian] regime’s resilience … What began as a far-reaching, imaginative Israeli initiative, definitive in its solution, ends in disappointment”.
“A reasonable estimate suggests that 7,000–8,000 [people] were killed [in the January 2026 anti-government protests in Iran]’.
[These compilations are drawn from analysis & commentary by leading Israeli political and security commentators, predominantly from the Hebrew press — as reports published in Hebrew often provide a different window on Israeli internal discourse. Minor edits have been made for clarity].
THE DECISIVE VICTORY THAT NEVER WAS — How the Operation to Overthrow the Iranian Regime was Torpedoed (For Now)
Nahum Barnea & Ronen Bergman, Yedioth Ahoronot, 25 April — (edited for length and clarity in translation)
At the end of 40 days of fighting, the operation that was supposed to decide the war with Iran did not take place. Everyone involved in it in Israel is left with a sense of missed opportunity. The question is why it did not happen: Was it because our American partners did not believe in the operation from the outset, was it because Trump changed his mind, was it because Erdoğan phoned the President, or was the whole idea a fantasy with slim chances of success? This is open to debate.
The operation to topple the regime in Iran is the major catalyst for the war and the total victory that never was. A major story, intelligence-wise, militarily and politically. The details published here have been approved for publication by the military censor.
Thoughts of overthrowing the regime in Iran first emerged within the Mossad during Meir Dagan’s tenure, under the Olmert government [2006-2009]. The plan was to eliminate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and install in his place a figure from within the regime who would be recruited in secret. Opposition arose among the intelligence community’s leadership and the plan was scrapped. It was Netanyahu who reignited the idea. When he returned to the PM’s Office in 2023, he asked again and again whether there were any plans on the shelf to overthrow the regime.
It is understandable why the idea appealed to Dagan, to Netanyahu and to the current Mossad leadership: in a brilliant, covert operation, it would, in theory, be possible to resolve all the threats posed by Khomeinist Iran in one fell swoop: nuclear weapons, missiles and proxies. Netanyahu pushed for it; the Mossad was enthusiastic; Military Intelligence had reservations ...
Dedi Barnea was appointed head of the Mossad in 2021. For years, Iran had been the organisation’s main theatre of operations. Barnea ordered a dramatic shift in an area that had previously been marginal – driving influence operations within the general Iranian public. Under his leadership, this area has become central to the campaign against Iran.
A regime can be toppled from above, by relying on senior officials, or from below, by fostering mass protest and armed resistance by minorities. Israel has chosen both options simultaneously … The sterile term ‘influence’ does not convey the scale of the effort and the sophistication involved. Faced with a regime that is pure poison, Israel has set up its own poison machine. The operation began four years ago and reached operational maturity two and a half years ago ...
[The attacks] in September 2024, and June 2025 were significant milestones in the decision-making process. Both the political leadership – the PM [Netanyahu] – and senior figures in the security services were freed from the fear of execution. Anyone capable of blowing up thousands of beepers in a single stroke feels they can do anything. Israeli security also rests on the feeling that the Americans are fully behind us: for years they have sought to exact revenge on Hezbollah for the murder of hundreds of Americans, soldiers and CIA agents. The elimination of Nasrallah and other senior Hezbollah figures brought a bloody cycle to a close for them … Enthusiasm for Israel’s performance was evident at all levels of the US administration …
At the conclusion of [the June 2025 attack], Trump and Netanyahu declared that the two existential threats to Israel – the nuclear programme and the missiles – had been removed for generations to come. The reality was less rosy, and within Israel’s security establishment, they understood, internalised this, and set about preparing for the next round. An air strike on Iranian infrastructure will not do the job, the experts warned. Even if it were to be a resounding success, it would inevitably drag us into round after round, a pit we swore not to fall into after 7 October. The only move that will get us out of this vicious circle is the overthrow of the regime.
The plan was aimed for a war in June 2026. By June, preparations would be complete and conditions ripe. But then, in January [2026], tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets, on their own terms … The protests did not topple the Iranian regime … but they had a decisive impact far away, in Mar-a-Lago ...
The Iranian regime responded with a level of violence that took the intelligence services by surprise … A reasonable estimate suggests that 7,000–8,000 civilians were killed. Trump declared that “help is on the way”, thereby creating a far-reaching commitment. The Iranians took note. So did the Israelis.
Trump ordered CENTCOM, the US Central Command, to deploy forces to the Gulf. Netanyahu instructed the IDF and the Mossad to bring forward the timing of the operation. Defence Minister Katz spoke of this during a visit to the IDF’s Intelligence Directorate in early March. “An operation was planned for the middle of the year … but due to developments and circumstances ... it became necessary to bring it forward to February.” Bringing the timing forward came at a price.
The plan to topple the regime was a central component of the overall war plan, the heart of the plan. At the height of the protests and the massacre, on 16 January, Mossad Director Barnea travelled to the US. He presented the plan to his American counterparts ... the plan was presented in full, including the overthrow of the regime ... The [US] administration prepared for war. It is unclear whether it committed to all its stages … On 11 February, Netanyahu arrives at the White House … Barnea appears on the encrypted video conference screen, speaking from Israel [and] presents the plan in its entirety to the President. The atmosphere is positive. Trump can envisage a Venezuela-style scenario in Tehran. He does not know that Venezuela is unique. Netanyahu returns home feeling that he and Trump are on the same wavelength – there is no rift between them. The plan, in all its components, has the green light.
The following day, in a meeting in the same room, with the President but without the Israelis, senior administration officials discuss the details of the plan to topple the regime. The atmosphere is different … The plan to topple the regime is complex. It begins with the elimination of the Supreme Leader and the government’s top brass through targeted airstrikes by the Israeli Air Force. For the first time in the history of the State of Israel, a decision is made to eliminate a head of state. Trump is in a different position. US law limits the president’s power to assassinate foreign leaders. As long as Israel is the executor, Trump is exempt from responsibility. He welcomes the assassination.
After 100 hours of air operations, the second phase of the plan to topple the regime is set to begin. The operation rests on three pillars. The first is a ground invasion from Iraq by a Kurdish militia ... Commanders ... said they intended first to reach the Kurdish region of Iran and then, once Iranian Kurds had joined them, to launch a mass march on the capital, Tehran. What happened in Syria at the end of 2024, when the jihadist militia brought down Bashar al-Assad’s army within days, will happen in Iran.
There are few secrets surrounding the mass, multi-tribal and multi-party mobilisation of Kurds, Baloch and Ahwazis in Kurdish Iraq. According to several sources, Iranian intelligence learns of the planned invasion in advance and shares the information with Turkish intelligence. Turkish intelligence informs Erdoğan, who contacts his friend Trump …
The second step is the Iranian people taking to the streets. Trump must call on them to do so. At the same time, the demonstrations will be spurred on by the influence networks established in Israel. The Basij forces, the regime’s security police, will be struck from the air and neutralised. The third step is the establishment of a replacement leadership.
The war gets off to a flying start. The Iranian leadership is eliminated or goes into hiding, fearing elimination. The command and control system suffers a fatal blow – at least that is how things appear from the outside at the time. Trump, on an evening of pure euphoria, calls on the Iranians to take to the streets. Netanyahu joins the call. They do not come out, and it is easy to see why: the streets are being bombed from above; the Revolutionary Guards ensure from below that anyone who ventures out will be considered a spy and shot on the spot ... The crowd chose to stay at home. The calls from America and Israel to take to the streets cease abruptly, with the declared intention of resuming them later. The Kurdish invasion also runs aground.
Back on 12 February, during a White House meeting, Trump hears from Vance, Rubio and CIA Director Ratcliffe, who express strong opposition to the regime change plan. Rubio called the plan ‘bullshit’ and Ratcliffe called it a ‘farce’. Trump listened. The idea of regime change triggers an instinctive resistance in Trump. He fears creating chaos. As he demonstrated in Venezuela, he does not want to replace a regime; he wants to subjugate it. He has no interest in the opposition living in exile. He refuses to meet with the Shah’s son.
Then came the phone call from Ankara. Erdoğan has his own scores to settle with the Kurds, with Israel, with NATO and with the US. It is important to him to prevent the Kurds from emerging as the victors of the war. This would reignite demands for their own state, which would take territory from Turkey, Iraq and Iran; he is competing with Netanyahu for Trump’s favour; and perhaps most importantly, he seeks to bring the war with Iran to an end with Turkey in the position of a regional power, the gateway through which every superpower must pass. Israel, with its ambitions, its military strength and its standing in the White House, is the rival, the adversary. Netanyahu said on 12 March that Israel is now “a regional power and, in certain fields, a global power”. Erdoğan took note …
Erdogan’s phone call convinced Trump. He ordered the invasion to be halted hours before the Kurdish forces were due to cross the border and after the air force had begun to clear a corridor for the invaders within Iran through bombing.
Israel complied. It played a dominant role in planning the operation; in the skies above Tehran, it was an equal partner; in the White House, on the fourth day of the war, facing the first leadership decision since the start of the campaign, Israel was left out. From that moment on, Israeli influence on the decision-making process has diminished. This is happening in direct proportion to the growing criticism within the MAGA movement of the war, and the disappointment that the regime is not collapsing.
Vance and Rubio … are looking for a way out that will absolve them of responsibility for the failure. Naturally, they are turning on Israel. Netanyahu is portrayed as the one who led Trump and the United States up the garden path; the plan to topple the regime is presented as a fantasy that comes with a price.
Despite the veto in Washington, despite the fact that protests have not taken to the streets and the invasion force has not crossed the border, the air strikes on the Basij roadblocks continue ...
The Three-Day Assessment: The United States and Israel entered the conflict without properly assessing the regime’s resilience. The elimination of the [Supreme] Leader shook the foundations of the regime but failed to prevent an orderly transfer of power, in accordance with the will Khamenei left behind. Nor did the bombings prevent the restoration of the command and control structure. Worse still, the regime discovered the power of the Strait of Hormuz to alter the course of the war. The Americans were unprepared for this move and its massive economic consequences. Every pre-war intelligence assessment mentioned the possibility that the strait might be closed. Why were the Americans surprised? One possible answer is that Trump was certain the regime would collapse within days ...
All that was missing was the order: On the fourth day of the war, when the miracle failed to materialise, a debate erupted within the security establishments over why the miracle had not happened and whether it would ever happen … As the 40-day war dragged on and its relative outcomes became clear, the debate intensified. It forms part of a broader debate concerning the Thousand-Day War, the conflict that began 930 days ago, on 7 October 2023, and has yet to end on all fronts.
The final chord of any war is the narrative. Did we win or lose? Who excelled and who is to blame? ... At the start of the war, Netanyahu wholeheartedly embraced regime change as one of the three war aims, alongside the nuclear programme and missiles. This was the central objective promoted by the Mossad: the overthrow of the regime. The IDF phrased it differently: the aim is to create the conditions that will enable a change of government. This is not a matter of wordplay … Netanyahu has shifted between formulations, depending on the convenience of the moment and the chances of success …
This is open to debate.
The operation to topple the regime in Iran is the major catalyst for the war and the total victory that never was. A major story, intelligence-wise, militarily and politically. The details published here have been approved for publication by the military censor.
Thoughts of overthrowing the regime in Iran first emerged within the Mossad during Meir Dagan’s tenure, under the Olmert government [2006-2009]. The plan was to eliminate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and install in his place a figure from within the regime who would be recruited in secret. Opposition arose among the intelligence community’s leadership and the plan was scrapped. It was Netanyahu who reignited the idea. When he returned to the PM’s Office in 2023, he asked again and again whether there were any plans on the shelf to overthrow the regime.
Alastair Crooke, [29/04/2026 15:48]
It is understandable why the idea appealed to Dagan, to Netanyahu and to the current Mossad leadership: in a brilliant, covert operation, it would, in theory, be possible to resolve all the threats posed by Khomeinist Iran in one fell swoop: nuclear weapons, missiles and proxies. Netanyahu pushed for it; the Mossad was enthusiastic; Military Intelligence had reservations ...
Dedi Barnea was appointed head of the Mossad in 2021. For years, Iran had been the organisation’s main theatre of operations. Barnea ordered a dramatic shift in an area that had previously been marginal – driving influence operations within the general Iranian public. Under his leadership, this area has become central to the campaign against Iran.
A regime can be toppled from above, by relying on senior officials, or from below, by fostering mass protest and armed resistance by minorities. Israel has chosen both options simultaneously … The sterile term ‘influence’ does not convey the scale of the effort and the sophistication involved. Faced with a regime that is pure poison, Israel has set up its own poison machine. The operation began four years ago and reached operational maturity two and a half years ago ...
[The attacks] in September 2024, and June 2025 were significant milestones in the decision-making process. Both the political leadership – the PM [Netanyahu] – and senior figures in the security services were freed from the fear of execution. Anyone capable of blowing up thousands of beepers in a single stroke feels they can do anything. Israeli security also rests on the feeling that the Americans are fully behind us: for years they have sought to exact revenge on Hezbollah for the murder of hundreds of Americans, soldiers and CIA agents. The elimination of Nasrallah and other senior Hezbollah figures brought a bloody cycle to a close for them … Enthusiasm for Israel’s performance was evident at all levels of the US administration …
At the conclusion of [the June 2025 attack], Trump and Netanyahu declared that the two existential threats to Israel – the nuclear programme and the missiles – had been removed for generations to come. The reality was less rosy, and within Israel’s security establishment, they understood, internalised this, and set about preparing for the next round. An air strike on Iranian infrastructure will not do the job, the experts warned. Even if it were to be a resounding success, it would inevitably drag us into round after round, a pit we swore not to fall into after 7 October. The only move that will get us out of this vicious circle is the overthrow of the regime.
The plan was aimed for a war in June 2026. By June, preparations would be complete and conditions ripe. But then, in January [2026], tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets, on their own terms … The protests did not topple the Iranian regime … but they had a decisive impact far away, in Mar-a-Lago ...
The Iranian regime responded with a level of violence that took the intelligence services by surprise … A reasonable estimate suggests that 7,000–8,000 civilians were killed. Trump declared that “help is on the way”, thereby creating a far-reaching commitment. The Iranians took note. So did the Israelis.
Trump ordered CENTCOM, the US Central Command, to deploy forces to the Gulf. Netanyahu instructed the IDF and the Mossad to bring forward the timing of the operation. Defence Minister Katz spoke of this during a visit to the IDF’s Intelligence Directorate in early March. “An operation was planned for the middle of the year … but due to developments and circumstances ... it became necessary to bring it forward to February.” Bringing the timing forward came at a price.
The plan to topple the regime was a central component of the overall war plan, the heart of the plan. At the height of the protests and the massacre, on 16 January, Mossad Director Barnea travelled to the US. He presented the plan to his American counterparts ... the plan was presented in full, including the overthrow of the regime ... The [US] administration prepared for war. It is unclear whether it committed to all its stages … On 11 February, Netanyahu arrives at the White House … Barnea appears on the encrypted video conference screen, speaking from Israel [and] presents the plan in its entirety to the President. The atmosphere is positive. Trump can envisage a Venezuela-style scenario in Tehran. He does not know that Venezuela is unique. Netanyahu returns home feeling that he and Trump are on the same wavelength – there is no rift between them. The plan, in all its components, has the green light.
The following day, in a meeting in the same room, with the President but without the Israelis, senior administration officials discuss the details of the plan to topple the regime. The atmosphere is different … The plan to topple the regime is complex. It begins with the elimination of the Supreme Leader and the government’s top brass through targeted airstrikes by the Israeli Air Force. For the first time in the history of the State of Israel, a decision is made to eliminate a head of state. Trump is in a different position. US law limits the president’s power to assassinate foreign leaders. As long as Israel is the executor, Trump is exempt from responsibility. He welcomes the assassination.
After 100 hours of air operations, the second phase of the plan to topple the regime is set to begin. The operation rests on three pillars. The first is a ground invasion from Iraq by a Kurdish militia ... Commanders ... said they intended first to reach the Kurdish region of Iran and then, once Iranian Kurds had joined them, to launch a mass march on the capital, Tehran. What happened in Syria at the end of 2024, when the jihadist militia brought down Bashar al-Assad’s army within days, will happen in Iran.
There are few secrets surrounding the mass, multi-tribal and multi-party mobilisation of Kurds, Baloch and Ahwazis in Kurdish Iraq. According to several sources, Iranian intelligence learns of the planned invasion in advance and shares the information with Turkish intelligence. Turkish intelligence informs Erdoğan, who contacts his friend Trump …
The second step is the Iranian people taking to the streets. Trump must call on them to do so. At the same time, the demonstrations will be spurred on by the influence networks established in Israel. The Basij forces, the regime’s security police, will be struck from the air and neutralised. The third step is the establishment of a replacement leadership.
The war gets off to a flying start. The Iranian leadership is eliminated or goes into hiding, fearing elimination. The command and control system suffers a fatal blow – at least that is how things appear from the outside at the time. Trump, on an evening of pure euphoria, calls on the Iranians to take to the streets. Netanyahu joins the call. They do not come out, and it is easy to see why: the streets are being bombed from above; the Revolutionary Guards ensure from below that anyone who ventures out will be considered a spy and shot on the spot ... The crowd chose to stay at home. The calls from America and Israel to take to the streets cease abruptly, with the declared intention of resuming them later. The Kurdish invasion also runs aground.
Back on 12 February, during a White House meeting, Trump hears from Vance, Rubio and CIA Director Ratcliffe, who express strong opposition to the regime change plan. Rubio called the plan ‘bullshit’ and Ratcliffe called it a ‘farce’. Trump listened. The idea of regime change triggers an instinctive resistance in Trump. He fears creating chaos. As he demonstrated in Venezuela, he does not want to replace a regime; he wants to subjugate it. He has no interest in the opposition living in exile. He refuses to meet with the Shah’s son.
Then came the phone call from Ankara. Erdoğan has his own scores to settle with the Kurds, with Israel, with NATO and with the US. It is important to him to prevent the Kurds from emerging as the victors of the war. This would reignite demands for their own state, which would take territory from Turkey, Iraq and Iran; he is competing with Netanyahu for Trump’s favour; and perhaps most importantly, he seeks to bring the war with Iran to an end with Turkey in the position of a regional power, the gateway through which every superpower must pass. Israel, with its ambitions, its military strength and its standing in the White House, is the rival, the adversary. Netanyahu said on 12 March that Israel is now “a regional power and, in certain fields, a global power”. Erdoğan took note …
Erdogan’s phone call convinced Trump. He ordered the invasion to be halted hours before the Kurdish forces were due to cross the border and after the air force had begun to clear a corridor for the invaders within Iran through bombing.
Israel complied. It played a dominant role in planning the operation; in the skies above Tehran, it was an equal partner; in the White House, on the fourth day of the war, facing the first leadership decision since the start of the campaign, Israel was left out. From that moment on, Israeli influence on the decision-making process has diminished. This is happening in direct proportion to the growing criticism within the MAGA movement of the war, and the disappointment that the regime is not collapsing.
Vance and Rubio … are looking for a way out that will absolve them of responsibility for the failure. Naturally, they are turning on Israel. Netanyahu is portrayed as the one who led Trump and the United States up the garden path; the plan to topple the regime is presented as a fantasy that comes with a price.
Despite the veto in Washington, despite the fact that protests have not taken to the streets and the invasion force has not crossed the border, the air strikes on the Basij roadblocks continue ...
The Three-Day Assessment: The United States and Israel entered the conflict without properly assessing the regime’s resilience. The elimination of the [Supreme] Leader shook the foundations of the regime but failed to prevent an orderly transfer of power, in accordance with the will Khamenei left behind. Nor did the bombings prevent the restoration of the command and control structure. Worse still, the regime discovered the power of the Strait of Hormuz to alter the course of the war. The Americans were unprepared for this move and its massive economic consequences. Every pre-war intelligence assessment mentioned the possibility that the strait might be closed. Why were the Americans surprised? One possible answer is that Trump was certain the regime would collapse within days ...
All that was missing was the order: On the fourth day of the war, when the miracle failed to materialise, a debate erupted within the security establishments over why the miracle had not happened and whether it would ever happen … As the 40-day war dragged on and its relative outcomes became clear, the debate intensified. It forms part of a broader debate concerning the Thousand-Day War, the conflict that began 930 days ago, on 7 October 2023, and has yet to end on all fronts.
The final chord of any war is the narrative. Did we win or lose? Who excelled and who is to blame? ... At the start of the war, Netanyahu wholeheartedly embraced regime change as one of the three war aims, alongside the nuclear programme and missiles. This was the central objective promoted by the Mossad: the overthrow of the regime. The IDF phrased it differently: the aim is to create the conditions that will enable a change of government. This is not a matter of wordplay … Netanyahu has shifted between formulations, depending on the convenience of the moment and the chances of success …
From the fifth day of the war, Netanyahu has prioritised the military’s line over that of the Mossad. The overarching goal of toppling the regime has become a welcome possibility. The responsibility for achieving it lies with others. This is significant because, assuming that the opportunity to topple the regime in the manner Israel had prepared has, more or less, been exhausted, the question arises: what [went wrong]? Some will lay the blame on Trump, who halted the Kurdish invasion, whilst others will lay it on the Mossad’s ambitions. The debate currently centres on the timeline. Both sides are telling the truth. One side asks: where is the collapse we expected to see after a hundred hours? The other side says the collapse was only supposed to happen in the next phase, the third phase of the war to topple the regime. Trump stopped us in the second phase, and then the ceasefire stopped us. Everything is now ready for the third phase. Only the order is missing.
Perhaps we are missing the point here: Was there, and is there still, a realistic chance for an Israeli plan to topple a regime in a country of 90 million people, with a deeply entrenched, brutal and unrestrained government? Have we invested enormous efforts in a quagmire that never came to be?
There are also lessons to be learnt for the future. Those in Israel who have pinned their hopes on the regime’s downfall view the American effort to reach an agreement with Iran with a heavy heart. At best, the agreement will put an end to the nuclear programme. It will not address the missile programme or regional terrorism. Worse still, say the agreement’s opponents, it will grant the regime a period of stability and immunity. Due to the lifting of sanctions, tens of billions of dollars will flow to the Iranian regime ... A war intended to help the Iranian people replace the regime ends up entrenching the regime and sparing the blood of its domestic opponents.
What began as a far-reaching, imaginative Israeli initiative, definitive in its solution, ends in disappointment. The plan’s proponents in Israel have no choice but to hope for a resumption of hostilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment