Ask Onix
Israel maintains low profile amid US military buildup
Israeli leadership has stayed unusually quiet as the United States ramps up forces in the Middle East, despite Iran being Israel's top security concern. Analysts say the silence reflects a calculated strategy to let Washington take the lead against Tehran.
Netanyahu's golden opportunity
Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli military intelligence officer now at the Institute for National Security Studies, called the current moment a "golden opportunity" for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. With US forces positioned in the Gulf and President Donald Trump considering military action, Netanyahu sees a chance to weaken Iran's regime without direct Israeli involvement.
"For Netanyahu, this is a moment he cannot afford to miss," Citrinowicz said. While publicly restrained, Netanyahu is privately pushing the US toward decisive strikes aimed at regime change, according to Citrinowicz. Earlier this month, Netanyahu reportedly urged Trump to hold off on a planned attack, calling it "too small."
Strategic patience or risky gamble?
Asaf Cohen, a former deputy director of Israel's signals intelligence unit, said Israel's leadership believes the US has greater strength and global legitimacy to lead the confrontation. "They are stronger, have more capabilities, and can act with broader international support," Cohen said.
Yet the stakes are high. A limited US strike could leave Iran's regime intact, risking further retaliation. During last year's 12-day conflict, Iran launched hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israeli cities, killing at least 28 people. Analysts warn Iran has since adapted its tactics and is rebuilding its missile stockpiles.
"When you deal with total evil, you don't act limited."
Moshe Tur-Paz, Yesh Atid lawmaker and Knesset Defense Committee member
Regime change: opportunity or instability?
Many in Israel see regime change in Iran as a path to long-term security, hoping it would neutralize Tehran's ballistic missiles and nuclear ambitions while weakening proxies like Hezbollah. The group still has up to 25,000 rockets in Lebanon, according to Israel's Alma research institute.
But others caution that toppling Iran's leadership could plunge the region into chaos. With no clear successor to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and a fractured opposition, a power vacuum could destabilize Iran and its neighbors. "Regimes aren't usually toppled by airstrikes alone," one defense insider noted.
Public opinion and political calculations
Israeli polls show strong majority support for military action against Iran, even after last year's conflict. In Tel Aviv, residents living amid missile-strike wreckage expressed mixed views. Neria, a young man in his 20s, said, "If it's through attack or other means, we should leverage this moment to change regimes." Shani, a young woman nearby, urged caution: "Politicians need to think about the people. Actions have consequences."
Netanyahu, facing elections and working to restore his image as Israel's security guarantor, sees regime change-or even Khamenei's assassination-as a potential political victory. "It's a calculated gamble," Citrinowicz said. "Netanyahu wants to show, with Trump, that he destroyed the Iranian regime."
Negotiations or escalation?
Both the US and Iran have signaled openness to talks, but Trump's demands-ending uranium enrichment, curbing proxies, and limiting ballistic missiles-are seen as non-starters for Tehran. Israel opposes any deal, with analysts divided on whether an agreement is possible.
Cohen believes both sides want a deal but warns that time is running out. "If negotiations fail, the US will strike," he said. Citrinowicz countered that Iran's red lines make war hard to contain. "Iranians will see this as a fight for survival," he said.
Trump may be softening his stance, focusing on Iran's nuclear program. If talks resume, the region could avoid conflict-but many in Israel remain wary. "The essential difference is we want quick results, and Iran has patience," Cohen said. "They've been here 2,000 years. Another 30 years for a nuclear weapon? That's fine for them."
