Iran International
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is making regime change in Iran an explicit goal ahead of Israel’s election, while political rivals advocate tough measures against Tehran and criticize his failure to eliminate the Iranian threat.
The debate puts competing promises of security before voters whom analysts describe as exhausted by years of conflict, raising questions about what would constitute victory and how far Israel would go to achieve it.
“We must complete the elimination of the Iranian regime — that is the primary objective,” Netanyahu said Tuesday at Tel Hai University in Kiryat Shmona, near the Lebanese border.
Netanyahu has long welcomed the prospect of the Islamic Republic’s collapse. Now, with Israelis voting on October 27, he is placing the removal of Iran’s leadership at the forefront of his message.
Netanyahu argued that weakening Iran militarily would not guarantee Israel’s security. As long as the Islamic Republic remains in power, he said, it will attempt to rebuild its nuclear capabilities and regional network.
“Finishing the job means bringing down the terrorist regime in Iran,” Netanyahu said, describing Tehran as the head of a “poisonous octopus” whose removal, he argued, would also bring down Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The declaration followed discussions with US President Donald Trump and an unannounced visit by US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Washington, however, has not publicly committed to regime change, emphasizing instead the prevention of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Why emphasize regime change now?
Netanyahu’s declaration comes as he seeks another term following three years of war and repeated military confrontations with Iran and its regional allies.
Itai Reuveni, director of communications and outreach at NGO Monitor, said the prime minister was articulating what many Israelis had already understood to be the broader ambition behind military operations against Tehran.
“I think he just summarized all the things that everyone meant,” Reuveni told Iran International.
Making regime change the declared objective raises questions about whether weakening Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities would be sufficient for Netanyahu to claim victory.
Yaakov Katz, former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post and author of four books on Israel’s military, said repeated strikes alone cannot permanently eliminate the Iranian threat.
“You can bomb them, you can destroy facilities, you can set back nuclear programs, but they will rebuild,” Katz told Iran International.
Netanyahu is presenting regime change as the route to lasting Israeli security, a message delivered in Kiryat Shmona, a historically Likud-supporting community repeatedly targeted by Hezbollah.
Vivian Bercovici, Canada’s former ambassador to Israel and founder and editor-in-chief of State of Tel Aviv, said the location allowed Netanyahu to appeal directly to voters who have experienced the consequences of Iran’s regional influence.
But she questioned whether the declaration would persuade Israelis beyond his existing supporters.
“I really think that people have tuned him out,” she said.
A shared concern, a public tired of war
Those interviewed described opposition to the Islamic Republic as extending across much of Israel’s political spectrum, while drawing a distinction between agreement on the threat and enthusiasm for another military confrontation.
“It’s the one issue on which there’s no daylight in Israel,” Bercovici said.
Yet she described a public exhausted by years of fighting.
“I don’t think that Israel has any appetite for war,” she said. “We’ve had way too much war in the last three years.”
Reuveni described a similar tension. Many Israelis believe Iran’s immediate military threat has diminished following Israeli and American strikes, he said, complicating the case for further military action.
“People are tired from the war,” he said.
Katz said the election ultimately comes down to which leader Israelis trust to protect them, rather than any single declaration about Iran.
“What is important is the belief in which leader do Israelis think can keep them safe,” he said.
Does Netanyahu’s declaration set him apart?
Netanyahu’s explicit objective does not necessarily distinguish him from his political rivals, several of whom have advocated aggressive measures against Tehran and criticized his failure to eliminate the Iranian threat.
Former prime ministers Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid are contesting the election together under the joint list Together (Beyachad).
Lapid has advocated striking Iran’s energy infrastructure, including Kharg Island, while Bennett has long promoted confronting Tehran directly rather than focusing on its regional proxies.
Gadi Eisenkot, the former military chief who leads the centrist Yashar party, has questioned whether regime change is achievable through military action, emphasizing the permanent dismantling of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Yisrael Beiteinu, has also advocated overthrowing the Islamic Republic and criticized previous Israeli efforts as insufficient.
Eric Mandel, founder and director of the Middle East Political and Information Network, said the broad agreement on Iran means a change of government in Israel would not necessarily produce a fundamental shift in policy.
“I think most Israelis know that it doesn’t matter who’s going to get elected, they’re going to have the same policy in Iran,” Mandel told Iran International.
But agreement on the threat is different from agreement on how to eliminate it.
Mandel said achieving regime change would require American involvement, underscoring the gap between Netanyahu’s declared ambition and Washington’s publicly stated objectives.
“Israel is a regional power, America is a superpower,” he said. “Israel could be very helpful, but Israel can’t do it on its own.”
Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir left Tehran on Tuesday after Iranian leaders reiterated their conditions for negotiations with Washington and ruled out transferring enriched nuclear material abroad, as regional mediators continue efforts to ease the standoff.
Iranian state media reported that a Qatari delegation also visited Tehran after Munir’s departure, extending a flurry of regional visits that included Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s talks in Tehran and US War Secretary Pete Hegseth’s unannounced trip to Israel.
Qatar and Pakistan have played key roles in mediating Iran-US negotiations in recent months. Munir helped broker talks that led to a memorandum of understanding in June.
Iran reiterates conditions
President Masoud Pezeshkian told Munir that Washington must lift pressure, threats and sanctions before any negotiations, according to Iranian state media.
“Our nation does not trust America today and believes that if we negotiate, they will attack us again,” Pezeshkian said, referring to US attacks during earlier negotiations.
He thanked Pakistan for its diplomatic efforts while warning that another war would bring destruction and losses across the region.
Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf separately told Munir that Iran had nothing new to tell Washington, which must fulfill Tehran’s seven conditions presented in New York to regain its trust.
Ghalibaf accused the Trump administration of violating the Islamabad memorandum and said military threats would not change Iran’s strategic decisions.
Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaei also ruled out sending Iran’s enriched nuclear material abroad.
“Not even a particle of enriched nuclear material will leave Iran,” he told Munir, describing the stockpile as a national asset intended for domestic use.
Rezaei also said negotiations would not begin until Washington took steps to build trust, starting with fulfilling Iran’s conditions.
Mediation efforts continue
Al-Araby Al-Jadeed reported Tuesday that Qatar and Pakistan had proposed giving Iran interest on $6 billion in frozen assets held in Qatari banks in exchange for access to its nuclear facilities.
The outlet’s sources said Washington had approved the proposal and Iran had responded positively, with Munir conveying it during his visit.
Earlier Tuesday, a spokesman for Iran’s parliamentary national security committee had described Munir’s trip as solely focused on bilateral relations and border cooperation, denying it involved a new mediation initiative.
Regional visits amid military pressure
Munir’s visit followed Lavrov’s meetings with Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Monday. Pezeshkian said Iran remained ready to resolve regional disputes through dialogue while rejecting attempts to impose terms by force.
Hegseth also met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday at Uvda air base in southern Israel.
Netanyahu’s spokesman Doron Spielman told Reuters they discussed regional threats and US-Israeli cooperation in responding offensively and defensively. Hegseth later said he had visited US forces serving under Central Command.
Fox News reported Tuesday, citing two US officials, that a third US aircraft carrier and about 10,000 military personnel were heading to the Middle East, with arrival expected by the end of November.
The diplomatic contacts and military movements come amid mixed signals from President Donald Trump, who told a campaign rally in Kansas on Monday that the United States could already leave the war.
“Somebody said you could leave right now. It’s true. We could leave right now,” Trump said, adding that Iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that toppling Iran’s regime was Israel’s “primary objective,” a day after discussing Iran with US War Secretary Pete Hegseth during an unannounced visit to Israel.
Netanyahu said he had also discussed bringing down Iran’s leadership with US President Donald Trump on Sunday, placing the issue at the center of his latest contacts with Washington.
“We must complete the elimination of the Iranian regime — that is the primary objective,” Netanyahu said at the opening of the academic year at the new Tel Hai University in Kiryat Shmona, near the Lebanese border.
“I have spoken about this with President Trump more than once, including the day before yesterday.”
His remarks did not indicate whether Trump had agreed to pursue that objective or committed to further military action.
Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran specialist and former head of the Iran branch in Israeli Defense Intelligence, told Iran International that while the two leaders might agree on military targets, their strategic objectives could diverge.
"Netanyahu seeks to topple the regime, and Trump seeks to reach a good agreement with the same regime that Netanyahu seeks to topple," he said.
Hegseth discussed Iran with Netanyahu on Monday, three Israeli officials told Reuters. Netanyahu’s spokesman, Doron Spielman, confirmed that they met at Uvda air force base in Israel’s southern Negev desert.
Spielman said the talks covered regional threats and US-Israeli cooperation in confronting them through offensive and defensive measures.
Hegseth also thanked Israel for hosting US forces, which Spielman said numbered in the thousands, and discussed Trump’s support for Netanyahu.
‘Finishing the job’
Speaking on Tuesday, Netanyahu linked his stated objective in Iran to Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah, saying the military had made major progress against the Lebanese group but pledging to “finish the job.”
“Finishing the job means bringing down the terrorist regime in Iran. It is the head of this poisonous octopus. You cut it off, and it will fall. We will also have peace with Lebanon,” he said.
Netanyahu argued that Iran’s leadership, even “battered, wounded and beaten,” would seek to pursue nuclear weapons and rebuild its regional network of allied armed groups.
“Therefore, the only way to prevent this is to bring down this regime, and then the elimination of Hezbollah will follow,” he said.
The Hegseth meeting came eight days before Israel’s October 27 election. Trump endorsed Netanyahu on Sunday, ahead of the country’s first parliamentary vote since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack.
In his endorsement message, Trump praised Netanyahu’s role in confronting Iran and warned that Washington might have to act alone if another leader took office.
US and Israeli forces launched joint strikes against Iran in late February, setting off a wider regional war. The latest consultations come amid renewed tensions between Washington and Tehran over the Strait of Hormuz and intensifying attacks by Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthis on Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia should join forces with the United States, Israel and the United Arab Emirates to help bring about political change in Iran, rather than continue policies that have failed to contain Tehran's regional influence, an analyst told Iran International.
The Islamic Republic's support for Yemen's Houthis has exposed the limits of Saudi military power and diplomacy, making a broader coalition against Iran necessary, said Hussain Abdul-Hussain, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
“I'm not saying the Marines should land anywhere in Tehran,” Abdul-Hussain said. “I'm just saying push the regime enough so that the other Iranians can take over.”
The proposed strategy, he said, would draw on the US-led coalition that expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, with Saudi Arabia providing regional political support for a campaign aimed at weakening the Islamic Republic and enabling Iranians to determine their country's political future.
Such a coalition could fundamentally alter the regional balance of power and influence the calculations of China and Russia, Abdul-Hussain added.
Iran's Houthi leverage
The Houthis have emerged as one of the Islamic Republic's most effective regional allies, maintaining their military capabilities despite years of Saudi-led operations and pressure on other Iran-backed armed groups.
Their geographical distance from Israel has also made them more difficult to weaken than Hezbollah in Lebanon or Iran-aligned militias in Iraq, according to Abdul-Hussain.
The challenge, he said, has become more pronounced since the withdrawal of Emirati forces from Yemen following divisions within the Saudi-led coalition.
Pro-UAE militias had provided some of the coalition's most effective ground forces, leaving Saudi Arabia increasingly dependent on air power and Yemeni government forces weakened by corruption, inflated troop numbers and divisions, Abdul-Hussain said.
Airstrikes alone cannot defeat an armed group operating from mountainous terrain and fortified positions, he argued, drawing comparisons with Israel's experience fighting Hezbollah in 2006 and 2023.
The absence of reliable ground partners has therefore allowed the Houthis to remain a persistent military challenge despite Saudi Arabia's superior conventional capabilities.
The group's operations also serve Iran's wider regional strategy by placing Saudi energy infrastructure and shipping routes within reach of an Iranian ally.
Recent Houthi advances and strikes on Saudi territory reflect a broader Iranian message that disruptions to its own oil exports could be accompanied by pressure on other regional producers, particularly as Saudi Arabia shifts exports toward the Bab el-Mandeb shipping route, Abdul-Hussain added.
Saudi diplomatic failures
Saudi Arabia's continued diplomatic engagement with the Islamic Republic has failed to reduce the security challenge posed by Iran's regional allies, Abdul-Hussain said.
Maintaining an ambassador in Tehran and inviting Revolutionary Guards officials to Saudi National Day celebrations, even as Saudi energy infrastructure faces missile strikes, sends a message of weakness rather than diplomatic pragmatism, he argued.
The UAE, despite its smaller size and closer geographical proximity to Iran, had previously demonstrated greater willingness to sever diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic, according to Abdul-Hussain.
Saudi Arabia's diplomatic outreach to Turkey and Pakistan has also produced limited practical support against the Houthis and the Revolutionary Guards, he said.
Abdul-Hussain attributed part of the problem to a Saudi leadership structure in which advisers are reluctant to challenge prevailing assumptions, leaving decision-makers without a credible alternative to their existing strategy.
“They have to swallow their pride with the Emiratis and the Israelis,” Abdul-Hussain said. “This is the key.”
Restoring cooperation with Abu Dhabi and establishing open relations with Israel would provide the foundation for a more effective regional alignment against Iran, he added.
Such cooperation would need to be public rather than confined to private security arrangements, particularly because Israeli participation could expose Israeli shipping to additional Houthi operations.
Saudi Arabia's decision to condition normalization with Israel on Palestinian statehood has further complicated the formation of an anti-Iran coalition, Abdul-Hussain said.
The shift, he noted, has moved Riyadh away from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's earlier emphasis on prioritizing Saudi national interests, without producing corresponding security benefits for the kingdom.
Coalition against Iran
A coalition modeled on the international military campaign that expelled Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait in 1991 could provide a framework for confronting the Islamic Republic without a US ground invasion of Iran, Abdul-Hussain said.
Saudi Arabia played a central role in assembling regional support for that campaign, lending political legitimacy to a military operation led by the United States.
A similar alignment involving Washington, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and Israel could apply sustained pressure on Iran's ruling establishment while leaving the ultimate outcome to Iranians themselves, according to the analyst.
“Throw all the chips behind President Trump and the war on Iran, and push for regime change,” Abdul-Hussain said.
The proposed approach would mark a departure from Saudi Arabia's efforts to balance diplomatic relations with Iran against military operations targeting its regional allies.
Rather than continuing to absorb the costs of confronting the Houthis without weakening their principal backer, Saudi Arabia should help organize a broader campaign directed at the Islamic Republic itself, Abdul-Hussain argued.
The central objective, in his view, would not be a foreign occupation of Iran but sufficient external pressure to create an opportunity for Iranians to replace the country's ruling establishment.
Iran’s new defense minister threatened the US and Israel during a parliamentary session held online over fears of attack, but even the virtual meeting faltered when poor internet connections prevented 25 lawmakers from voting on his appointment.
Mehrdad Akhlaghi was elected defense minister on Sunday with 237 votes in favor and 15 against. Alireza Salimi, a member of parliament’s presiding board, said 277 lawmakers attended the virtual session but 25 were unable to register their votes because of internet connectivity problems.
Akhlaghi issued his warning during the same session, saying another US or Israeli “miscalculation” would trigger Iran’s response.
Parliament has relied heavily on remote sessions during the war, after lawmakers amended its internal rules in July to allow virtual plenary meetings during emergencies.
Iranian media have also raised questions about attendance and voting participation during virtual sessions. At one virtual session on July 28, held to examine the International Crime Countermeasures Bill, 50 lawmakers were absent. Of the 240 lawmakers present, 37 did not participate in the vote.
No explanation was given for why the 37 lawmakers did not vote.
Hardline lawmaker Meysam Zohourian has also criticized the pace of parliamentary work. He said online sessions were being held no more than twice a week and warned that, at the current pace, approving the so-called “Infiltration Bill,” which lawmakers are examining, could take a year.
Political dispute over remote sessions
Restrictions on in-person sessions have intensified a dispute between parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf and his hardline opponents, including members of the Paydari Front and allies such as the Masaf group.
Some of Ghalibaf’s hardline critics have accused him of supporting restrictions on in-person sessions to reduce his exposure to possible US or Israeli attacks and to shield President Masoud Pezeshkian’s government, including Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, from parliamentary pressure.
Hamid Rasaei, a hardline Tehran lawmaker who was sentenced to prison on charges of defaming Ghalibaf and recently began serving his sentence, has been among the most vocal opponents of holding parliamentary sessions online.
Another hardline lawmaker, Mojtaba Zolnouri, recently said 117 lawmakers had signed a letter calling for a return to in-person parliamentary activity. According to Zolnouri, the signatories argued there was no longer any reason to hold meetings remotely.
Media outlets supportive of Ghalibaf and his political allies have strongly rejected the accusations.
On October 11, Iman Shamsaei, head of parliament’s communications center, rejected claims that restrictions on in-person plenary sessions were intended to protect Ghalibaf’s life. Instead, he argued, it was necessary to prevent parliament from losing its quorum.
Shamsaei argued that if the number of representatives fell below the constitutional two-thirds quorum, parliament would be unable to carry out its legislative and oversight functions and new elections could become necessary.
Criticism spreads on social media
The dispute has also played out on social media, particularly among hardline supporters of the Paydari Front and Ghalibaf’s political allies.
On Sunday, hardline journalist Fereshteh Sadeghi criticized the claim that parliament remained operational because some meetings were being held online.
“Parliament is closed. The fact that its committees have held meetings here and there, or that online sessions have been arranged — with many lawmakers unable to connect — does not mean parliament is open,” she wrote on X.
Reformist journalist Davoud Heshmati focused on the internet problems that prevented lawmakers from voting.
“This is no joke. Twenty-five lawmakers did not have a decent internet connection to carry out their parliamentary duties and participate in an important vote to elect the defense minister. This is a clear and real example of the situation we live in,” he wrote.
Other users defended the continuation of remote sessions, arguing that some hardline lawmakers were pushing for a return to in-person meetings because in-person sessions provided them with a platform to obstruct the government.
Questions over parliament’s public legitimacy
The controversy comes amid broader questions about the parliament’s standing with the public.
Turnout in Iran’s 2024 parliamentary elections fell to a record low for the Islamic Republic, with participation particularly weak in Tehran, where only 24% of eligible voters cast ballots.
Despite the dispute over whether parliament is functioning effectively, lawmakers have continued to advance controversial legislation during the war, including the so-called Infiltration Bill.
The dispute underscores a broader contradiction: critics say remote sessions have impaired parliament’s ability to function effectively, even as lawmakers continue advancing legislation that could impose further restrictions on Iranian society.
Washington and Tehran may still reach a limited deal, but fundamental disagreements leave open the prospect of renewed escalation, analysts told Iran International, with the period after elections in Israel and the United States emerging as a potential turning point.
Diplomatic efforts are continuing, with Qatar and Pakistan pushing for an agreement and The New Arab reporting Monday, citing sources familiar with mediation efforts, that a breakthrough could be announced this week.
The analysts interviewed by Iran International were more cautious, however, seeing little evidence that either side has made the concessions required for a broader agreement and identifying the coming elections as a factor that could shape the timing of diplomacy or renewed military action.
Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran specialist and former head of the Iran branch in Israeli Defense Intelligence, said continuing diplomatic exchanges did not amount to evidence of an imminent breakthrough because neither side appeared ready to make the compromise required for one.
"In order to have a breakthrough, one side needs to show significant compromise. And I don't see that in the Iranian side," he told Iran International.
Washington wants substantial restrictions on Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities, while Tehran is prioritizing relief from the US blockade and sanctions, alongside the restoration of maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that Tehran's seven-day proposal remained on the table. Under the proposal, Iran would reopen the strait within seven days if Washington accepted Tehran's conditions, paving the way for renewed negotiations.
Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute, saw greater scope for a limited arrangement than a comprehensive settlement, arguing that both Trump and Tehran have short-term incentives to reduce tensions without resolving their fundamental differences.
Trump, he argued, faces political pressure ahead of the November 3 midterm elections and could benefit from a diplomatic achievement. Tehran, meanwhile, needs economic relief as the blockade continues to undermine its finances.
"You might have a deal that could create ceasefire conditions for a short period of time, of weeks and months," Vatanka told Iran International.
But he said he had seen little indication that Tehran was willing to accept the kind of comprehensive agreement Trump could present as a major improvement over the 2015 nuclear deal.
Iran's leadership, Vatanka argued, believes it has paid a heavy price for its nuclear program while demonstrating its ability to disrupt the global economy through the Strait of Hormuz. Economic pressures could encourage a narrow agreement, but sweeping concessions risk exposing divisions within the Islamic Republic's leadership.
A deal under the threat of force
The diplomatic activity comes as US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have intensified warnings of renewed military action.
On Sunday, Trump threatened to "soon finish the job" against Iran unless Tehran changed course, while giving Netanyahu his endorsement ahead of Israel's October 27 election.
Netanyahu, who has explicitly identified the removal of the Islamic Republic as an Israeli objective, has said Israel is prepared to act independently of Washington if necessary.
On Monday, Netanyahu released a video of a telephone conversation with Trump following the US president's endorsement of his reelection campaign.
"Donald, we have a job to finish, you said it, and we'll finish it together. We'll finish it, and no one else will do it," Netanyahu told Trump.
Shayan Samii, a geopolitical and national security analyst, said Trump's combination of negotiations and military threats allowed him to preserve both outcomes: claiming a diplomatic victory if talks succeed or demonstrating resolve through military action if they fail.
"The United States wants to keep the diplomatic avenue still open and valid. Why? Because it helps for domestic political purposes," Samii told Iran International.
"It allows Trump to say, I'm giving diplomacy all the chances in the world, but at the same time I'm keeping the pressure on them."
He also interpreted Trump's endorsement of Netanyahu as an attempt to increase Washington's leverage over the Israeli leader should he remain in power.
Samii suggested Iran or its regional allies could provoke a confrontation ahead of Israel's election, potentially providing a pretext for renewed strikes. He presented this as a possible scenario, not evidence of a planned operation.
Russia could influence the diplomatic track
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's visit to Tehran on Monday added another dimension to the diplomatic maneuvering.
Vatanka said Russia possesses considerably greater leverage over Iran than mediators such as Pakistan, Qatar or Oman, partly because Tehran depends on Moscow for diplomatic support.
That influence could become significant if negotiations require difficult concessions, including a possible arrangement to transfer Iran's highly enriched uranium to Russia.
But Vatanka questioned whether Moscow's interests necessarily aligned with Tehran's.
Russia would mediate "primarily to use it to get what Putin wants from Trump on the Ukraine front," he said.
Vatanka suggested Moscow could seek concessions from Washington over Ukraine in exchange for helping facilitate an agreement with Iran.
Tehran, however, may resist being used as a bargaining chip, particularly if Russian pressure requires abandoning positions the Islamic Republic considers fundamental.
Why the post-election period could prove decisive
If diplomacy fails to produce a breakthrough, Citrinowicz sees renewed escalation as increasingly difficult to avoid — but the elections may affect when it happens.
"With no breakthroughs, escalation is inevitable, because the status quo is unstable," he said.
He cautioned, however, that inevitable did not necessarily mean imminent.
The upcoming elections could influence the timing of any military operation. Israelis vote on October 27, followed by the US midterms on November 3.
Citrinowicz identified the period after the November 3 US midterms but before the newly elected Congress takes office in January as a possible window for military action, particularly if Republicans lose control of one or both chambers.
Vatanka similarly identified the post-election period as a potential turning point, arguing that Washington and Israel could consider additional pressure against Tehran once immediate electoral calculations had passed.
He said options could include continued enforcement of the blockade, limited military strikes and other measures designed to weaken or divide the Iranian establishment.
Yet the prospect of renewed military action raises a deeper question: whether Trump and Netanyahu ultimately seek the same outcome.
Citrinowicz argued that while the two leaders might agree on military targets, their strategic objectives could diverge.
"Netanyahu seeks to topple the regime, and Trump seeks to reach a good agreement with the same regime that Netanyahu seeks to topple," he said.
"Operationally, maybe there will be eye to eye in terms of what to attack, but strategically, I'm not sure if they see eye to eye."
That divergence leaves a central question unresolved: even if Washington and Israel agree on another round of strikes, they may not agree on what those strikes are ultimately meant to achieve.
