Occupied Jerusalem- In a remarkable development on the escalation front between Israel andIranTel Aviv began to show public signs of her desire to end the ongoing war, after the recent American strike that targeted Iranian nuclear sites.
The statements of Israeli officials reported by the official Broadcasting Authority showed that the government is ready for the ceasefire “until tomorrow” if the Iranian guide, Ali Khamenei, declared his willingness to do so, in a letter that seemed to many observers as an attempt to open a door to calm without direct recognition of the urgent need for it.
These messages, which were issued days after the escalation, did not pass without attention among Arab analysts, in which they saw an indication of the extent of the pressure that Israel is exposed internally, especially in light of the paralysis that affected the movement in the Israeli cities for the second week in a row, and the increasing reports of the erosion of the defensive inventory, especially with regard to interceptor missiles.
The analysts unanimously agreed that this new Israeli discourse does not reflect a decisive military achievement, but rather an indirect recognition of the high price that Israel pays as a result of the Iranian response, especially with the inability of the American strikes, which Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu – who is required to be charged with war crimes in Gaza – to destroy Iranian nuclear project Completely.
Despite the “tremendous damage” that Tel Aviv claims to have caused the program, field indicators confirm that Iran has succeeded in saving some components of its sensitive facilities, which leaves the door open to continuing the project later.
(Israeli army)
Israeli anxiety
In the background of this scene, the deep Israeli anxiety is highlighted by a long -term war scenario, which drains military and economic capabilities and weakens the home front, as Iran previously did with Iraq in the eight -year war.
Looking at that experience, the Israelis fear a repeat of a path in which they do not have the ability to decide or timing to end it. Hence, the Israeli openness is read to stop the war as an attempt to avoid drowning in an open regional quagmire, more than an expression of field confidence or strategic superiority.
Analysts and researchers in the Israeli affairs believe that Iran will most likely avoid a direct response to the United States, despite the recent blow that targeted its nuclear facilities.
This abstinence, according to their estimates, does not stem from weakness, but rather from accurate strategic calculations, aimed at avoiding an open confrontation with Washington, may be more cruel and more expensive.
In contrast, please Tehran Focusing on the depletion of Israel, through accurate and violent missile attacks, causing severe damage, whether in infrastructure or in the home front, without opening the door to a comprehensive regional war.
The path of attrition
Commenting on whether the Israeli hints about preparing to stop the war reflect an implicit recognition of the influence of Iranian attacks, the researcher Antoine Shallah says that Israel will not acknowledge this publicly, but rather continues to market a narration that it “destroyed the Iranian nuclear program”, despite its accurate knowledge that this claim is not based on reality.
Shalhah adds to Al -Jazeera Net that the official Israeli discourse is trying to preserve the image of “achievement”, at a time when the security leaders realize, and even implicitly, that the maximum that can be achieved militarily is to delay the Iranian nuclear program, not to destroy it.
Shallah also explained that this contrast in the discourse between the political and security level is not new. While the politicians, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, promoted the idea of the ability to eliminate the Iranian nuclear project, the military and security establishment speaks in a more realistic and professional language, and explicitly acknowledges that such a goal is not possible without the overthrow of the Iranian regime itself.
Based on this, Shallah believes that Netanyahu, who built his security faith for years on the “Iranian threat”, was in urgent need of military action through which he was accomplished, so he sought to drag the United States to confront Iran, through which he comes out with political and security gains.
Shallah believes that the extent of the destruction caused by Iranian missiles inside Israel, whether it was revealed or still secreted, played a pivotal role in pushing Israeli decision -makers to think serious about stopping the war.
He pointed out that the grave losses in infrastructure, property, and the psychological state of the internal front constituted double pressure on the political leadership, which began to realize that the continuation of the battle may lose Israel the remaining achievements, and lead it to the path of a long -term depletion, which has no ability to bear it.
A wide Iranian missile attack on Israel, and Israeli officials say they hope to end the battle with #Iran Within days
The news in a story b #Aza pic.twitter.com/9EDu1Km9AmAl -Jazeera channel (@AjArabic) June 23, 2025
The absence of the strategy
In a complementary reading of what Shallah went to, the Palestinian historian Dr. Johnny Mansour believes that the apparent confusion in Israeli statements, whether by political or military officials, reflects a state of deep confusion in dealing with the path of the escalating war with Iran.
Mansour pointed out to Al -Jazeera Net that this contradiction in the Israeli discourse does not only reflect the absence of a clear strategy, but also reveals concern about the shift of confrontation into a large -scale regional war that may be out of control.
Commenting on the statements that hint on Israel’s readiness to stop the war, Mansour believes that the real goal of it is not to seek to calm or settle, but rather an attempt to exclusively in Iran at a moment in Tel Aviv as a temporary moment of weakness, allowing the imposition of a surrender agreement on it.
This agreement, according to the Israeli vision, must include an Iranian pledge to stop its nuclear project and abandon its micro -missile and ballistic arsenal, with the support of Washington and its European allies.
As for what is promoted by an Israeli regarding the “approaching the completion of the target bank” and preparing to stop the war after achieving the required achievements, Mansour describes it as “just political heresies”, accusing Netanyahu of dodging, as he continues the war on more than one front without a real timetable or clear borders, considering that the future of the battle with Iran is not determined by Israel but Tehran alone.
Mansour concludes that the decisive factor in the Israeli position is not the military achievement, but rather the pressure resulting from the Iranian missiles that affected the Israeli depth. These missiles, according to its evaluation, were paralyzed, disrupted economic and commercial facilities, and greatly affected daily life, and revealed the limited ability of the Israeli air defenses to fully confront them.