January 17, 2026
Joe Lauria
Thus Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Trump on Wednesday to ask him to back off until Israel is ready.
The Israeli outlet ynet Global, reported:
“According to CNN, Israeli officials warned that air defense systems had been used extensively during last year’s direct conflict with Iran and that they did not believe Iranian regime would collapse quickly without prolonged military campaign.”
CNN wrote on Friday:
“Behind the scenes … an urgent effort has been underway by some top US allies to forestall military action. And Trump, wary of taking action with an uncertain outcome that could put US service members in harm’s way, appeared receptive to the arguments, multiple US officials said.
[On] Wednesday afternoon, Trump spoke by phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who encouraged the president to hold off plans for an attack, a person familiar with the call said.
Israelis didn’t believe the regime would fall quickly without a prolonged campaign, and there was concern over the state of the country’s missile defenses, which were extensively used during conflict between Israel and Iran last year, a different source familiar with the matter said.
The message carried added weight for the president, given Netanyahu’s past entreaties to Trump to join in Israeli military action against Iran. The New York Times first reported the conversation.”
Indeed, The New York Times published a curious report on Thursday under the headline, “Israel and Arab Nations Ask Trump to Refrain From Attacking Iran,” with a subtitle that reads:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the president to postpone any planned attack. Israeli and Arab officials fear Iran could retaliate by striking their countries.”
The article starts by quoting a single “senior U.S. official” saying Netanyahu “has asked President Trump to postpone any plans for an American military attack on Iran.”
But the piece gives no reasons why Netanyahu, normally keen on a U.S. strike, would do this, nor did it back up the subtitle that says Israel fears Iranian retaliation. That would have been a bombshell revelation for the Times to report that Israel is not prepared to withstand Iran’s counterattack after the damage it suffered from Iran in the June war.
The piece provides no further details and moves on to other subjects without again mentioning Israel’s call to halt the attack. It was almost as if the Times was afraid to admit why Israel asked Trump to back off: because in its current state of unpreparedness, it is spooked by Iran.
Trying to Pull a Fast One
Ynet Global said the U.S. president thought he could pull a fast one:
“Trump had sought to carry out a powerful strike quickly, preferably a one-off action or one of very short duration, with the primary goal of achieving a clear outcome — namely, the collapse of the Iranian regime.
However, his advisers and Pentagon generals were unable to guarantee that such a move could be swift. A rapid and forceful operation would require extensive preparations, as was the case, for example, in Venezuela, preparations that would have taken weeks.
In any event, the generals and National Security Council officials told Trump that even a strike on Iran would not necessarily bring about the regime’s collapse.”
That must have bummed Trump out when he found out the job of overthrowing the Iranian government could not be done in an afternoon and that Iran would fight back.
“What was certain was that such a strike would trigger retaliation. American bases throughout the Middle East would be attacked, Israel would be forced to confront and absorb missile and drone barrages, and the energy industries of other U.S. allies in the Gulf could also be hit. That, in turn, would drive up global oil prices and the cost of petroleum products, including in the United States.”
The Times of Israel reinforced the story:
“Experts have warned that Israel may find itself less equipped to defend itself against Iran’s missile threat that it was in the two countries’ 12-day round of fighting in June, when Israel targeted the Islamic Republic’s military leadership, nuclear program and missile production.”
Depleted Interceptor Stockpiles
Just five days into the 12-day war, The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel’s stocks of Arrow interceptor missiles were becoming depleted, “raising concern about the country’s ability to counter long-range ballistic missiles from Iran if the conflict isn’t resolved soon.”
The war ended seven days later. Had it not, Israel could have used up its entire stockpile.
The United States came to Israel’s rescue, but had to fire 150, or 25 percent, of its entire store of THAAD interceptors in assisting Israel. It would take more than a year to replenish that amount, the WSJ reported on July 24, 2025, one month after the war ended. In that piece, the newspaper said:
“Although Israel has its own sophisticated, multilayered defense, which includes systems like Arrow, David’s Sling and Iron Dome, the country was running low on its own interceptors and was husbanding resources by the time the conflict ended. Had Iran fired a few more large volleys of missiles, Israel could have exhausted its supply of top-tier Arrow 3 munitions, one of the U.S. officials said.”
Though it suffered significant destruction to its air defense systems from Israeli air strikes, there was debate in Iran about whether to continue the war as Iran had Israel reeling.
According to that WSJ report, Iran would have wiped out Israel’s main air defense interceptors had it launched one more missile barrage. Iran may not have known that at the time and agreed to the ceasefire that Trump imposed at Israel’s request.
Now seven months after the war, Israel is apparently still unable to replenish insufficient stockpiles of interceptors to ward off Iranian ballistic missiles in a more prolonged conflict. And there is no indication when Israel might be ready.
The Damage Iran Did
During the war, Iran fired 550 ballistic missiles and more than 1,000 drones at Israel. Tel Aviv claims it intercepted 86 percent of them.
Despite strenuous efforts by Israeli authorities to suppress news from bomb sites — including arresting news crews — the extent of the destruction Israel suffered from those few that got through was significant.
The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the vaunted Israeli air defense system failed to completely stop the inundation of Iranian ordnance. “The Israel Tax Authority has received applications for financial assistance for nearly 33,000 damaged structures,” it said.
The newspaper reported:
“In Tel Aviv, 480 buildings have been damaged, many of them badly, at five separate sites. In Ramat Gan, it’s 237 buildings at three sites, about 10 badly. In another Tel Aviv suburb, Bat Yam, 78 buildings were damaged by one hit; 22 will have to be razed.The Israel Tax Authority has received applications for financial assistance for nearly 33,000 damaged structures. Another 4,450 files have been opened for the loss of belongings and equipment, and another 4,119 for damaged vehicles”.
The Iranian attacks killed 29 Israeli civilians and, according to a Haaretz map, 96 buildings were severely damaged. By contrast, in the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq fired 42 Scud missiles at Tel Aviv and Haifa, killing two Israelis and damaging 4,100 buildings, destroying 28. The Haaretz report dealt only with civilian buildings. Iran also hit a number of Israeli military bases, including Kirya and Camp Moshe Dayan in Tel Aviv; as well as the BAZAN oil refinery in Haifa, causing significant damage; and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, destroying two buildings.
Or Is It a Ruse?
When the U.S. and Israel committed an act of aggression against Iran last June both countries feigned that an attack was not imminent. The United States lulled Iran into thinking it was engaged in negotiations over a nuclear deal. Trump talked about a “two-week” timeline to reach a deal or face the consequences.
But he struck before the fortnight was up.
It was a deliberate ruse to hide U.S. preparations for an attack. The ruse was reported by The New York Times in a piece called “Shifting Views and Misdirection: How Trump Decided to Strike Iran.”
With the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group still steaming towards the Persian Gulf there is speculation that the Israelis and the U.S. are again engaged in a ruse.
On Friday, Mossad Director David Barnea arrived in Washington for talks over the weekend. If Trump were to decide to strike he would be defying the Gulf Arab nations and Egypt who are imploring him not to set the region ablaze.
But he is more likely to listen to the prime minister of Israel. And when Trump and Netanyahu conspire, anything can happen.
Joe Lauria
Benjamin Netanyahu called Donald
Trump to urge him to hold off on bombing Iran because, reports say, Israel
feels vulnerable to Iran’s counterattack, writes Joe Lauria.
Israel is fearful that its air
defense systems, depleted by the Iranians in last June’s 12-day war, have not
been sufficiently restored to withstand Tehran’s powerful response if Donald
Trump’s public ravings leads him to bomb Iran.
Thus Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Trump on Wednesday to ask him to back off until Israel is ready.
The Israeli outlet ynet Global, reported:
“According to CNN, Israeli officials warned that air defense systems had been used extensively during last year’s direct conflict with Iran and that they did not believe Iranian regime would collapse quickly without prolonged military campaign.”
CNN wrote on Friday:
“Behind the scenes … an urgent effort has been underway by some top US allies to forestall military action. And Trump, wary of taking action with an uncertain outcome that could put US service members in harm’s way, appeared receptive to the arguments, multiple US officials said.
[On] Wednesday afternoon, Trump spoke by phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who encouraged the president to hold off plans for an attack, a person familiar with the call said.
Israelis didn’t believe the regime would fall quickly without a prolonged campaign, and there was concern over the state of the country’s missile defenses, which were extensively used during conflict between Israel and Iran last year, a different source familiar with the matter said.
The message carried added weight for the president, given Netanyahu’s past entreaties to Trump to join in Israeli military action against Iran. The New York Times first reported the conversation.”
Indeed, The New York Times published a curious report on Thursday under the headline, “Israel and Arab Nations Ask Trump to Refrain From Attacking Iran,” with a subtitle that reads:
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the president to postpone any planned attack. Israeli and Arab officials fear Iran could retaliate by striking their countries.”
The article starts by quoting a single “senior U.S. official” saying Netanyahu “has asked President Trump to postpone any plans for an American military attack on Iran.”
But the piece gives no reasons why Netanyahu, normally keen on a U.S. strike, would do this, nor did it back up the subtitle that says Israel fears Iranian retaliation. That would have been a bombshell revelation for the Times to report that Israel is not prepared to withstand Iran’s counterattack after the damage it suffered from Iran in the June war.
The piece provides no further details and moves on to other subjects without again mentioning Israel’s call to halt the attack. It was almost as if the Times was afraid to admit why Israel asked Trump to back off: because in its current state of unpreparedness, it is spooked by Iran.
Trying to Pull a Fast One
Ynet Global said the U.S. president thought he could pull a fast one:
“Trump had sought to carry out a powerful strike quickly, preferably a one-off action or one of very short duration, with the primary goal of achieving a clear outcome — namely, the collapse of the Iranian regime.
However, his advisers and Pentagon generals were unable to guarantee that such a move could be swift. A rapid and forceful operation would require extensive preparations, as was the case, for example, in Venezuela, preparations that would have taken weeks.
In any event, the generals and National Security Council officials told Trump that even a strike on Iran would not necessarily bring about the regime’s collapse.”
That must have bummed Trump out when he found out the job of overthrowing the Iranian government could not be done in an afternoon and that Iran would fight back.
“What was certain was that such a strike would trigger retaliation. American bases throughout the Middle East would be attacked, Israel would be forced to confront and absorb missile and drone barrages, and the energy industries of other U.S. allies in the Gulf could also be hit. That, in turn, would drive up global oil prices and the cost of petroleum products, including in the United States.”
The Times of Israel reinforced the story:
“Experts have warned that Israel may find itself less equipped to defend itself against Iran’s missile threat that it was in the two countries’ 12-day round of fighting in June, when Israel targeted the Islamic Republic’s military leadership, nuclear program and missile production.”
Depleted Interceptor Stockpiles
Just five days into the 12-day war, The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel’s stocks of Arrow interceptor missiles were becoming depleted, “raising concern about the country’s ability to counter long-range ballistic missiles from Iran if the conflict isn’t resolved soon.”
The war ended seven days later. Had it not, Israel could have used up its entire stockpile.
The United States came to Israel’s rescue, but had to fire 150, or 25 percent, of its entire store of THAAD interceptors in assisting Israel. It would take more than a year to replenish that amount, the WSJ reported on July 24, 2025, one month after the war ended. In that piece, the newspaper said:
“Although Israel has its own sophisticated, multilayered defense, which includes systems like Arrow, David’s Sling and Iron Dome, the country was running low on its own interceptors and was husbanding resources by the time the conflict ended. Had Iran fired a few more large volleys of missiles, Israel could have exhausted its supply of top-tier Arrow 3 munitions, one of the U.S. officials said.”
Though it suffered significant destruction to its air defense systems from Israeli air strikes, there was debate in Iran about whether to continue the war as Iran had Israel reeling.
According to that WSJ report, Iran would have wiped out Israel’s main air defense interceptors had it launched one more missile barrage. Iran may not have known that at the time and agreed to the ceasefire that Trump imposed at Israel’s request.
Now seven months after the war, Israel is apparently still unable to replenish insufficient stockpiles of interceptors to ward off Iranian ballistic missiles in a more prolonged conflict. And there is no indication when Israel might be ready.
The Damage Iran Did
During the war, Iran fired 550 ballistic missiles and more than 1,000 drones at Israel. Tel Aviv claims it intercepted 86 percent of them.
Despite strenuous efforts by Israeli authorities to suppress news from bomb sites — including arresting news crews — the extent of the destruction Israel suffered from those few that got through was significant.
The Israeli daily Haaretz reported that the vaunted Israeli air defense system failed to completely stop the inundation of Iranian ordnance. “The Israel Tax Authority has received applications for financial assistance for nearly 33,000 damaged structures,” it said.
The newspaper reported:
“In Tel Aviv, 480 buildings have been damaged, many of them badly, at five separate sites. In Ramat Gan, it’s 237 buildings at three sites, about 10 badly. In another Tel Aviv suburb, Bat Yam, 78 buildings were damaged by one hit; 22 will have to be razed.The Israel Tax Authority has received applications for financial assistance for nearly 33,000 damaged structures. Another 4,450 files have been opened for the loss of belongings and equipment, and another 4,119 for damaged vehicles”.
The Iranian attacks killed 29 Israeli civilians and, according to a Haaretz map, 96 buildings were severely damaged. By contrast, in the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq fired 42 Scud missiles at Tel Aviv and Haifa, killing two Israelis and damaging 4,100 buildings, destroying 28. The Haaretz report dealt only with civilian buildings. Iran also hit a number of Israeli military bases, including Kirya and Camp Moshe Dayan in Tel Aviv; as well as the BAZAN oil refinery in Haifa, causing significant damage; and the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, destroying two buildings.
Or Is It a Ruse?
When the U.S. and Israel committed an act of aggression against Iran last June both countries feigned that an attack was not imminent. The United States lulled Iran into thinking it was engaged in negotiations over a nuclear deal. Trump talked about a “two-week” timeline to reach a deal or face the consequences.
But he struck before the fortnight was up.
It was a deliberate ruse to hide U.S. preparations for an attack. The ruse was reported by The New York Times in a piece called “Shifting Views and Misdirection: How Trump Decided to Strike Iran.”
With the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group still steaming towards the Persian Gulf there is speculation that the Israelis and the U.S. are again engaged in a ruse.
On Friday, Mossad Director David Barnea arrived in Washington for talks over the weekend. If Trump were to decide to strike he would be defying the Gulf Arab nations and Egypt who are imploring him not to set the region ablaze.
But he is more likely to listen to the prime minister of Israel. And when Trump and Netanyahu conspire, anything can happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment