Israel sidelined from war with Iran — media
Israel found itself on the sidelines of the new US military campaign against Iran: American forces struck Iranian infrastructure for nearly two weeks, while the IDF did not participate. Washington made clear it is not interested in Israeli involvement unless Tehran directly attacks Israel. President Trump canceled a prepared large-scale strike and said Israel committed to refraining from attack. Israel retains military capabilities, but its freedom of action is limited by dependence on the US for arms supplies and diplomatic support. The key question is whether Israel will decide to act against Washington's position.
Israel found itself in an unusual position amid the new round of confrontation with Iran. While American forces struck targets inside the Islamic Republic over several nights, the IDF did not take part in the operation, and key decisions about the campaign's course were made in Washington. According to Ynet, after Operation 'Roaring Lion' concluded, Israel retained the ability to act independently against Iran. In particular, on June 7, the air force struck launchers, air defense systems, and other targets after 11 rockets were fired at Israeli territory. However, during the latest escalation, the situation changed. American troops attacked bases, ports, bridges, airfields, and other Iranian infrastructure for nearly two weeks, while Israel remained outside the strike campaign. The report says Washington signaled to Israel that it is not interested in direct Israeli involvement unless Tehran itself launches a direct attack on Israel. Additional uncertainty comes from sharp shifts in US President Donald Trump's position. About a week ago, he canceled a prepared large-scale strike on Iran, although shortly before he had warned Tehran of readiness to use extremely powerful military force. After that, Trump said a basis for possible agreements had emerged and claimed Israel had committed to refraining from attack. The situation is complicated by the US president's public statements. Earlier, when asked about the possibility of renewed Israeli strikes, Trump said that if he tells Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to do something, Netanyahu does it. Israel's position is that previous operations already caused serious damage to Iran's nuclear program, missile industry, military infrastructure, and security leadership. However, the main risk is that Washington now controls not only the military component of the confrontation but also the negotiation process. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Pakistan, and other states are simultaneously trying to influence Trump's position, and their interests do not always align with Israel's. As a result, there is a possibility of an agreement with Iran that does not fully meet Israel's demands. Despite the serious damage inflicted on Iran in previous operations, not all objectives were achieved. Israel still has aviation, intelligence capabilities, a target bank, and operational plans for action inside Iran. But military potential does not mean full diplomatic freedom. An independent Israeli strike could derail Washington's talks with Tehran, provoke a new massive Iranian response, and lead to serious disagreements between Netanyahu and Trump. Consequently, the key question now is not whether Israel can attack Iran again, but whether it will decide to do so against Washington's position if Tehran crosses the red line set by Israel.