Israeli sources have revealed the behind-the-scenes military decision that led to the outbreak of war against Iran, where President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the final decisions regarding war and ceasefire. Three military figures emerged as the most influential after them: Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, and Commander of US Central Command General Michael Kurilla.
According to an exclusive investigation by the Jerusalem Post, Zamir was a key factor in convincing Milley and Kurilla that war was feasible and actionable, leading them to support it or refrain from opposing it. Milley played a crucial role in persuading Trump of the possibility of engaging in war, despite his doubts about significant aspects of it. His stance was linked to Trump’s repeated decisions to announce a unilateral ceasefire, fearing the cost of escalation on American lives and political standing.
Details of the Event
During an emergency visit to Washington on February 12, Netanyahu presented Trump with a four-step plan that included the assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior military and intelligence officials, the destruction of Iran's missile and drone capabilities, inciting an internal uprising and transforming it into regime change, and a potential ground attack by Kurds living along the Iran-Iraq border.
However, none of the three leaders genuinely believed in the third and fourth steps, with Zamir willing to take risks on them, while Milley and Kurilla focused on the first two steps. This divergence pushed towards regime change while attempting to avoid direct involvement, without declaring opposition, which had a direct impact on the course of the war.
Background & Context
In the distribution of roles, Israel was tasked with targeting leaders and centers of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Basij, along with military capabilities, while the United States focused on Iranian capabilities. Despite Trump's public calls for intervention, he kept his country out of direct involvement in regime change, influenced by Milley and supported by Kurilla.
The investigation also noted that Israeli efforts to influence the war decision particularly focused on Milley, through visits by Zamir, Mossad Director David Barnea, and Military Intelligence Chief Major General Aharon Haliva to Washington. In contrast, Kurilla was less involved in the decision to go to war and focused on building options, playing a key role in geographically dividing targets between Israel and the United States.
Impact & Consequences
The investigation addressed Zamir's main argument for accelerating the timing of the war, as he acknowledged the possibility of delaying the confrontation theoretically, since Iran had not yet crossed the critical threshold of ballistic missiles. However, Zamir warned that Iran was advancing rapidly, and postponement would harm military efforts later. According to the figures presented, Iran was producing between 200 and 300 ballistic missiles monthly, having compensated for about half of its losses in the June war from missiles and launch platforms within eight months, reaching approximately 2500 missiles.
Based on this estimate, waiting six months could raise the number to between 3700 and 4300 missiles, while after a year, it could reach between 4900 and 6100 missiles. The investigation concluded that this significant increase would lead to a substantial rise in casualties and damage, potentially reducing military operations earlier.
Regional Significance
Zamir linked the timing of the war to exploiting internal protests in Iran during January, considering February an opportune moment to act, in addition to warning against transferring nuclear assets to underground sites, making them harder to target later. However, the investigation held Zamir, Milley, and Kurilla accountable for two major failures; the first related to not stopping Iranian missile attacks, and the second concerning the Strait of Hormuz, where Milley and Kurilla did not raise the warning level sufficiently regarding potential risks.
The investigation concluded that the military campaign succeeded more than expected, but it did not fully achieve its objectives, particularly regarding missiles and Hormuz, while the issue of translating military gains into strategic results remained in the hands of political and diplomatic leaders, not military ones.