博客

A confidential diplomatic cable reveals a stark divergence between Israel’s public stance and its private assessment regarding Iran’s internal stability. According to the document, reviewed by The Washington Post, senior Israeli officials have privately conceded to their U.S. counterparts that any popular uprising against the Islamic Republic would be met with overwhelming and brutal force by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), resulting in a probable slaughter of protesters. This private evaluation stands in direct contradiction to repeated public exhortations by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the Iranian people to rise up against their government.

The cable details meetings held this week between American officials and high-level members of Israel’s National Security Council, Ministry of Defence, and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In these discussions, Israeli representatives admitted that the IRGC maintains a definitive ‘upper hand’ and that the state apparatus shows no signs of cracking, demonstrating a willingness to ‘fight to the end.’ Officials concluded that any attempt by anti-government activists to seize control would likely end in disaster.

This assessment is further bolstered by observations of Iran’s continued military capabilities, including its proven ability to launch ballistic missiles and drones ‘everywhere they want to,’ which is cited as proof of the state’s resilience. The officials also noted that despite rumors of his incapacitation, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei remains firmly in charge and is considered ‘more aligned’ with the hardline IRGC than his predecessor.

The failure of the exiled opposition to form a coherent front or project significant influence inside Iran has been another critical factor. Interviews with Iranians inside the country by Middle East Eye reveal a growing disillusionment with opposition figures like monarchist leader Reza Pahlavi. A recent call by Pahlavi for public mobilization during a traditional Persian celebration was met with little visible response, amid widespread fear and trauma from the ongoing conflict and a rising civilian death toll. Many citizens expressed anger at being asked to celebrate while living under the constant threat of airstrikes and violence, highlighting a significant gap between the diaspora’s calls to action and the grim reality on the ground.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announced on Monday the initiation of a ground military maneuver into Lebanese territory, declaring its objective as the elimination of threats to northern Israeli communities. The operation specifically targets the removal of Hezbollah operatives from border regions rather than the comprehensive dismantling of missile capabilities, according to military sources cited by Haaretz.

Minister Katz issued a stark warning regarding displaced populations, stating that hundreds of thousands of Shiite residents from southern Lebanon would be prevented from returning to areas south of the Litani River until Israel’s northern security is guaranteed. This declaration coincides with reports from Israeli Channel 13 indicating the establishment of approximately 20 military outposts within Lebanese territory, reminiscent of Israel’s previous ‘Security Zone’ occupation policy between 1982 and 2000.

Military analysts have raised questions regarding the operational effectiveness. Amos Harel, Haaretz’s military commentator, noted that Hezbollah’s presence south of the Litani remains limited and mobile, with operatives capable of rapid relocation before Israeli forces can engage them. He further observed that most missile and drone attacks originate from north of the Litani, beyond the current operation’s scope.

The conflict has triggered significant economic consequences, with Calcalist reporting that Mediterranean gas rigs have been shut down for the third time since October, forcing Israel’s energy sector to rely on more expensive and polluting alternatives like coal and diesel. Energy Minister Eli Cohen extended the shutdown until March 26th due to security concerns, costing the economy an estimated 600 million shekels ($193 million) according to financial experts.

Simultaneously, questions emerge regarding Israel’s defense capabilities. Despite official denials of interceptor shortages, The Marker reported that Israel’s arms industry faces production limitations while fulfilling international contracts, including a recent agreement with Germany. The report indicated intercepted missiles exceeding 1,300 since October 2023, with production rates subject to gag orders.

Evidence suggests potential interceptor conservation measures, with reports of missiles landing in open areas without interception attempts. Israel’s Home Front Command has concurrently modified its alert system to implement more precise warning mechanisms.

In an unprecedented move that has sent shockwaves through Washington, Joseph Kent, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, has resigned from his position, delivering a blistering condemnation of U.S. foreign policy toward Iran. The senior Trump administration official stepped down on Tuesday, publishing a resignation letter that directly accused Israel and pro-war advocates of orchestrating a campaign of deception that led America into an unnecessary conflict.

Kent, who possessed top-level security clearance and oversaw all U.S. government intelligence on terrorist threats, asserted that Iran presented no imminent danger to American interests. “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” he wrote. “This conflict was initiated due to substantial pressure from Israel and its influential lobbying apparatus within the United States.”

The resignation represents one of the most significant political departures in decades concerning foreign military engagement. Historically, no senior presidential administration official has publicly criticized Israel in a resignation letter until now. Kent specifically alleged that “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign” that undermined President Trump’s “America First” platform while cultivating pro-war sentiments.

President Trump responded to the resignation from the Oval Office, stating that while he considered Kent “a nice guy,” he believed the intelligence official was “weak on security.” Trump vehemently disputed Kent’s assessment of Iran, declaring, “Iran was a tremendous threat—every country recognized what a threat Iran was.” The president added that individuals who didn’t perceive Iran as dangerous were “not smart people” or “not savvy people.”

Kent’s background lends considerable weight to his criticisms. A former Army Ranger with eleven combat deployments following the September 11 attacks, he later served as a CIA paramilitary officer before entering politics as an ardent Trump supporter. His personal history adds a poignant dimension to his resignation: Kent is a Gold Star husband whose wife, Shannon, a Navy cryptologist, was killed in a 2019 bombing in Syria. He now claims that Israel bears responsibility for U.S. involvement in Syria as well.

The resignation has garnered praise from prominent figures within Trump’s MAGA movement who have opposed the war effort. Shawn Ryan, a former Navy SEAL and podcaster who endorsed Trump in the 2024 election, applauded Kent’s decision on social media, stating, “Sometimes the most impactful statement you can make is a strong resignation.”

Kent’s departure highlights deepening divisions within the administration regarding Middle East policy and raises serious questions about the intelligence that precipitated military action against Iran. His resignation letter stands as a remarkable indictment from within the highest echelons of American intelligence, challenging the official narrative surrounding the Iran conflict.

A comprehensive analysis reveals that the joint US-Israel military offensive against Iran, initiated over two weeks ago, appears fundamentally flawed by critical strategic miscalculations. The operation, described by US officials as delivering unprecedented ‘death and destruction from the sky,’ stems from two primary misjudgments: America’s belief in potentially toppling Iran’s ruling establishment and Israel’s misinterpretation of Hezbollah’s retaliatory capabilities.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified the offensive as necessary preventive action, stating: ‘Within a few months Iran’s industries of death would have become immune to any strike.’ Both US and Israeli leadership presented the operation as essential for neutralizing Iran’s ballistic missile programs and preventing nuclear escalation, with former President Trump claiming the attacks averted imminent nuclear conflict.

However, evidence suggests the operation’s true objective centered on regime change—a goal that appears increasingly unattainable. Despite massive military bombardment, US intelligence assessments indicate the Iranian government shows no signs of imminent collapse. Contrary to expectations, Tehran has witnessed no significant anti-government demonstrations, successfully transitioned leadership following Ayatollah Khamenei’s death, and maintained functional command structures.

Iran’s demonstrated capacity to retaliate—launching successful attacks against Gulf neighbors and Israeli targets while threatening the strategic Strait of Hormuz—has exposed additional miscalculations. The ongoing closure of the vital waterway has triggered what analysts describe as the most severe global energy crisis since the 1970s, directly challenging US regional hegemony.

The situation further deteriorated with Hezbollah’s unexpected military resurgence. Despite Israeli assessments that the organization had been neutralized following leadership decapitation campaigns, Hezbollah has demonstrated sophisticated missile capabilities, striking critical infrastructure in central Israel and effectively paralyzing northern regions.

This two-front confrontation—against both Iran and a resurgent Hezbollah—places unprecedented strain on Israeli military resources and domestic morale. As civilians seek shelter nationwide, public support for the war’s undefined objectives shows signs of erosion, mirroring the declining support witnessed during previous prolonged conflicts.

The geopolitical ramifications extend beyond immediate military concerns. Failure to achieve regime change in Iran represents a potential collapse of US credibility in the region, potentially driving Gulf allies to reconsider American security guarantees. Meanwhile, Russia and China stand to gain strategic advantage from perceived Western failure, while Iran’s international stature grows as it withstands combined superpower military pressure.

Historical parallels emerge with the 1956 Suez Crisis, where military victory translated into political defeat for intervening powers. Similarly, the current conflict may ultimately strengthen Iran’s regional position while weakening both Israeli and American influence, regardless of tactical military achievements.

Previously undisclosed intelligence assessments reveal that British security officials found no evidence of an imminent Iranian nuclear threat or planned missile attacks against Europe immediately preceding the joint US-Israeli military offensive against Iran. According to Guardian reports, Jonathan Powell, Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser, participated in final diplomatic negotiations between the US and Iran in Geneva, which concluded just two days before hostilities commenced.

Powell reportedly characterized Tehran’s concessions on its nuclear program as “surprising,” noting significant progress had been achieved during talks held at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny. A former official briefed on the discussions stated the UK delegation “were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” describing the proposal as incomplete but substantive enough to warrant continued negotiations scheduled for March 2nd.

The revelations provide crucial context for Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s cautious approach to the conflict. Whitehall sources indicate the Starmer government considers the US-Israeli attack legally unjustified and contrary to British national interests. Despite this assessment, Britain has become partially involved by permitting US forces to utilize British military bases for bomber operations targeting Iranian missile installations.

Diplomatic tensions with the United States emerged following Downing Street’s initial refusal to allow strikes originating from the joint UK-US base on Diego Garcia. The situation intensified when former President Trump threatened NATO with a “very bad” future if member states failed to assist in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively closed in response to military actions.

Prime Minister Starmer emphasized working with allies to develop a “viable plan” to reopen the critical waterway while acknowledging the attack had “massively weakened” Iran’s military capabilities. He advocated for a “negotiated agreement” to address nuclear proliferation concerns and safeguard international shipping. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband confirmed considerations to deploy minesweeping drones rather than warships to Hormuz, utilizing technology that tricks mines into detonating safely.