Ex-IDF Intel Chief: Iran Deal Possible, But Temporary; US-Israel Goals Differ
Translated & summarized from Mako by baba
Former Military Intelligence chief Tamir Hayman believes a deal with Iran is currently more likely than an attack, due to mediator efforts and Iranian flexibility on some issues. However, he warned that Iran is unlikely to concede on core nuclear demands, which could trigger an attack. Hayman also cautioned that a joint Israeli-US strike requires aligned objectives, noting differing goals between Netanyahu and Trump that could jeopardize such an operation.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Former Military Intelligence chief Tamir Hayman sees a deal with Iran as more likely than an attack.
- Hayman warns Iran is unlikely to compromise on core nuclear issues, potentially leading to an attack.
- He cautioned against a joint Israeli-US strike without aligned objectives.
- Hayman noted differing goals between Netanyahu and Trump regarding Iran.
- The former intel chief stressed the need for a clear exit strategy from any military operation.
Former head of Military Intelligence, Tamir Hayman, suggested in a recent interview that a deal with Iran is more likely than an attack, citing increased activity by mediators and some flexibility from Iran. However, he cautioned that this trend is temporary and could reverse. Hayman noted that while Iran might be willing to consider incremental confidence-building measures, they are unlikely to compromise on core issues like the removal of enriched uranium, which could lead to an attack.
Hayman warned against a joint Israeli-American strike on Iran without first establishing a shared objective. He pointed out a potential divergence in goals between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly seeks regime change, and President Donald Trump, who aims to pressure Iran back into a deal. This disagreement, Hayman stated, could lead to the collapse of any joint operation.
Furthermore, Hayman emphasized the need to define a clear exit strategy and ensure the operation's effectiveness, questioning what would be done differently to guarantee a different outcome than previous campaigns. He stressed the importance of preventing Iran from dictating the terms of the conflict's conclusion, which could allow them to claim victory.
Mentioned
