Shalom all, 

There is a familiar pattern unfolding in the Middle East – one that repeats itself with unsettling consistency: A war begins with bold declarations. Clear objectives are set. Lines are drawn.

And then, just as momentum begins to build, reality intervenes – economic pressure, political fatigue, global markets – and the United States looks for a way out. That is exactly what we are witnessing now.

The newly announced ceasefire between the United States and Iran is not a strategic victory. It is not even a genuine de-escalation. It is, at best, a temporary pause born of necessity, and at worst, a premature retreat dressed up as diplomacy.

As reported on Truth Social, President Trump stated: “I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks. This will be a double sided CEASEFIRE! The reason for doing so is that we have already met and exceeded all Military objectives (emphasis mine), and are very far along with a definitive Agreement concerning Longterm PEACE with Iran, and PEACE in the Middle East. We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated. On behalf of the United States of America, as President, and also representing the Countries of the Middle East (emphasis mine), it is an Honor to have this Longterm problem close to resolution.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed support for Trump’s decision for a two-week truce, but added that the “ceasefire does not include Lebanon.”

What is the Iranian proposal – which is said to be “a workable basis on which to negotiate”? You can form your own opinion of whether it is capitulation, or an honest proposal for peaceful resolution of conflict.

1. Complete cessation of hostilities – An immediate halt to all military actions against Iran and its allied “resistance” forces.

2. U.S. military withdrawal from the region – Removal of American combat forces from the Gulf and a prohibition on launching attacks from regional bases.

3. Controlled reopening of the Strait of Hormuz – Limited maritime traffic allowed for a defined period (two weeks), under Iranian coordination and supervision.

4. Full removal of sanctions -Lifting of all sanctions imposed on Iran, including those by the United Nations.

5. Compensation for war damages – Establishment of a financial mechanism or investment fund to compensate Iran for destruction caused during the conflict.

6. Commitment not to develop nuclear weapons – Iran pledges that it will not produce nuclear weapons.

7. Recognition of Iran’s right to enrich uranium – The United States acknowledges Iran’s right to enrichment, with further negotiations on acceptable levels.

8. Willingness to engage in regional peace arrangements – Iran agrees to enter into bilateral and multilateral discussions aimed at broader regional stability.

9. Non-aggression framework including proxy actors – Expansion of non-aggression principles to include groups aligned with Iran, such as Hezbollah.

10. Replacement of existing international oversight frameworks – Termination of current International Atomic Energy Agency and UN Security Council restrictions, to be replaced by a new internationally recognized agreement.

Along with the foregoing are demands for the release of frozen Iranian financial assets and “guarantees” to protect Iran and its proxy network from renewed attacks. Note that Iran’s demands speak of “proxy network” – see demand “9” – and not simply a “proxy”. In other words, it is seeking protection for Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis, and others presently unnamed, from attack by Israel.

If we read the details, rather than the headlines, the picture becomes unmistakably clear. 

The “Ceasefire” That Solves Nothing
The ceasefire, rooted largely in the Iranian proposal, is conditional upon the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. It is, at best, a fragile ceasefire. Even afterthe ceasefire was announced, missile barrages from Iran and Hezbollah continued to target Israeli communities.

Central to the agreement is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. According to a public announcement by Iran, “For a period of two weeks, safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz will be possible via coordination with Iran’s Armed Forces and with due consideration of technical limitations.” As of this writing, this waterway has not been fully, or securely, reopened, nor will it return to normal free navigation, but will be subject, as stated, to “coordination” with Iran’s military.

And the core issues? They remain untouched – Iran’s nuclear program remains intact (more than 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%); sanctions are still unresolved; proxy forces like Hezbollah remain active and Iran’s missile supply, while somewhat diminished, remains significant. This is not conflict resolution. It is conflict postponement. Stated more bluntly: nothing fundamental has been solved.

Let’s Be Honest: This Is About Money
If there is one factor that explains the sudden urgency for a ceasefire, particularly on the part of the Unite States, it definitely is not diplomacy. It is not even military success. It is cost.

Behind all the political hype, the financial and political pressure on Washington has been mounting rapidly. The war has disrupted global energy markets. Oil prices surged as the Strait of Hormuz became a chokepoint. Economic instability loomed – not just globally, but domestically in the United States. And, in an election-sensitive environment, all of that matters. Money talks, nobody walks (away)!

So let’s strip away the rhetoric: The United States is not stepping back because the mission is complete. It is stepping back because the bill is coming due. Markets stabilized almost immediately after the ceasefire announcement. That alone tells you what drove the decision. This was not a battlefield victory. It was a balance-sheet calculation.

And Israel? It is Left Holding the Line
While Washington breathes a sigh of relief, Israel is left in a far more precarious position. Israeli operations, particularly its present operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, are still in progress. Not completed. Not even close.

And now? They are being slowed, pressured, or potentially frozen. This is where the divergence becomes impossible to ignore: The United States wants de-escalation; Israel still needs decisive threat removal.

Those goals are not the same. And when those goals collide, Israel does not get to dictate the outcome. Quite the opposite – it is being called upon to absorb it.

The consequences of the present announced, two-week respite are immediate: Hezbollah remains operational; northern Israel remains under threat and military momentum is lost at a critical moment. And, perhaps, most dangerously, Israel’s freedom of action may now be constrained by diplomatic realities imposed from outside.

This is the cost of the ceasefire and Israel is the one that will bear the brunt of having to pay it.

Iran’s Real Victory: Survival
Let’s also dispense with another illusion, namely, that Iran has somehow been strategically defeated. 

Yes, it is true that Iran has taken hits and yes, Iran’s infrastructure has been slightly damaged. But, the core of its power remains. Iran still possesses enriched uranium at high levels dangerously close to weapons-grade. And, it retains the knowledge, the networks, and the ideological commitment to continue.

And perhaps most importantly – it has not been forced to concede. Instead, it has done what it has done before: It absorbed the pressure, endured the strikes, and waited out the storm.

From Tehran’s perspective, the message is simple: We were attacked . . . and we are still standing. That is not defeat. In the logic of the region of the Middle East – if you do not decisively lose, then, in effect, you are victorious.

The Gap Between Promise and Reality
At the start of this war, the objectives were ambitious, in fact, almost transformational: Stop Iran’s nuclear program; destroy its missile capabilities; break its proxy network and, possibly, even weaken or destabilize the regime itself. As regards the last of the above-mentioned goals, we should not allow ourselves to be fooled about the goal of regime change being a goal of Israel only and not of the United States. There was and, of necessity, had to be a tacit understanding that all of the financial concerns, generated by Iran, will remain as a sword of Damocles over the heads of the nations of the entire region – and the world – as long as Shiite fundamentalism continues Iran’s regime leadership. 

Let’s compare the war’s original objectives to where things stand now: Iran still has a significant amount of enriched uranium; Hezbollah, the terrorist organization from Lebanon, is still active; the Iranian regime is still in power and can arguably be said to be more hardened than before and there is no binding agreement that would prevent future escalation.

So what has actually been achieved? Damage. Delay. Disruption. But not resolution. This is not the elimination of a threat. It is the management of one. And managed threats have a way of returning – often stronger than they were before.

Both President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are at the center of this moment and are taking risks.

For Trump, the ceasefire offers short-term gains: lower oil prices, calmer markets, reduced political pressure. But it also opens him to a familiar line of attack: He blinked first. If Iran resumes its nuclear progress, or if conflict reignites, this ceasefire could quickly be reframed as weakness, not wisdom.

For Netanyahu, the challenge is even sharper: Israel’s security doctrine is built on decisive action . . . on finishing wars, not pausing them. A ceasefire that leaves Hezbollah intact and Iran’s capabilities only partially degraded is not an easy sell to a public that lives under those threats and that even suffered missile attacks around 03:00 Israel time this morning – well after the “pause” was announced.

This present exercise at restraint reminds me of the familiar story of the turtle and the scorpion a fable about inherent nature and the irrationality of destructive behavior and reveals that some individuals, or in our situation, some nations – cannot change their destructive behavior, regardless of the consequences – to others as well as to themselves. 

Returning to the events of this morning, if the situation deteriorates again – and history suggests it will – this moment may be remembered not as strategic patience, but as forced restraint with lasting consequences.

A Pause Before the Next Round
So let’s call this what it is: Not peace. Not victory. Not even stability. This is a pause. It is a pause driven by economics. It is a pause shaped by politics. It is a pause that leaves the underlying conflict unresolved. The United States steps back. Iran regroups. Israel remains exposed.

And in the Middle East, that combination rarely leads to calm. It leads to the next round. The only question is when.

In pride the wicked hotly pursue the afflicted. Let them [the wicked] be caught in the plots which they have devised…For the wicked boasts of his heart’s desire…He says to himself, “I will not be moved…His mouth is full of curses and deceit and oppression. Under his tongue is mischief and wickedness.

They speak mere words, with worthless oaths they make covenants (Hosea 10:4)

Whatever your circumstances, bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

As Israel marked the beginning of Passover, a holiday commemorating deliverance from bondage, the nation instead found itself under sustained and expanding assault. Over the past week, the war with Iran has intensified into a complex, multi-front conflict – combining direct missile strikes, proxy warfare through Hezbollah, and the alarming introduction of cluster munitions targeting civilian areas.

Reports from various news outlets point to a sobering reality: this is no longer a contained confrontation, but a regional war with escalating humanitarian and strategic consequences.

Over the course of the Passover week alone, more than 140 missiles and rockets have been launched toward Israel, including during the Passover Seder (the time when we gathered together to remember our deliverance from bondage in Egypt and while sharing a festive meal together). These attacks reflect a coordinated, dual-front strategy: direct ballistic fire from Iran alongside relentless rocket and drone attacks from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. What is striking is not only the volume, but the distribution. Northern Israel is under constant bombardment, while central cities – once relatively insulated – are increasingly within range.

Indeed, even as I began to write this article, the reality of the situation was far from being abstract. The north remains under near-continuous missile fire. Today alone, Haifa has endured its third missile attack. In the latest strike, a missile penetrated Israel’s air defense systems and made a direct hit on a residential building less than ten minutes from where I live. The building was destroyed, and many people were injured to varying degrees. Rescuers are still searching the rubble for survivors. The “boom” was loud and we knew that this was not the sound of missile interception that we were used to hearing. This is no longer simply a headline – it is a lived reality unfolding in real time.

Perhaps the most troubling escalation in recent days has been the reported use of cluster munitions. According to one news outlet and supported by Israeli security assessments, Iranian-launched missiles carrying cluster warheads have struck densely populated urban areas, including in the heart of Israel. Unlike conventional warheads, cluster munitions disperse dozens of smaller bomblets across wide areas, which cannot all be intercepted, and dramatically increasing the risk to civilians and leaving behind unexploded ordnance that can maim long after impact.

The human cost is mounting. Dozens of fatalities and hundreds of injuries since the escalation began. Residential neighborhoods have been severely damaged, infrastructure has been struck, and thousands of civilians have been forced repeatedly into shelters – disrupting every aspect of daily life.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah’s role has expanded significantly. This terrorist organization is launching sustained waves of rockets and drones from southern Lebanon, targeting both civilian communities and strategic assets. Israeli responses have included extensive airstrikes and limited ground operations aimed at degrading Hezbollah’s capabilities and pushing its forces further from the border. Analysis from the Alma Research and Education Center underscores that Hezbollah is acting not independently, but as an integrated arm of Iran’s broader military strategy.

At the same time, the conflict has drawn in the United States more directly. There has been an increasing operational cooperation between U.S. and Israeli forces, including intelligence sharing and joint missions, such as was done in locating and rescuing the U.S. navigator from inside Iranian territory after he ejected from the war plane that was hit. This evolving partnership also reflects the widening scope of the conflict and raises the stakes for regional escalation.

Iran’s strategy appears clear: apply sustained, multi-layered pressure through direct strikes, proxy warfare, and psychological disruption aimed at civilian populations. Its use of cluster munitions, in particular, reveals an intent to maximize not only physical damage but also fear and uncertainty across Israel’s urban centers.

Israel, in response, is pursuing what might be described as a strategy of offensive containment – striking Iranian and proxy assets while maintaining a robust defensive posture at home. Yet even with advanced missile defense systems, the sheer volume and persistence of attacks are testing the limits of interception capabilities and civilian endurance alike.

The past week has marked a turning point. What began as a dangerous escalation has now become a sustained, multi-front war. The north is under constant fire, central Israel is increasingly exposed, and the line between battlefield and home front has all but disappeared.

And for many Israelis, this is no longer something watched on screens. It is something heard in sirens, felt in shockwaves and seen in shattered building – something just minutes from home. The question is no longer whether the war will continue, but how far it will spread and how much it will demand from us before it ends.

Passover is meant to recall a journey from danger to deliverance. This year, that message feels especially poignant – and painfully unresolved. Israel is not yet at the shore. The waters are still rising, and the outcome remains uncertain.

“O give us help against the adversary,
For deliverance by man is in vain.
Through God we shall do valiantly,
And it is He who will tread down our adversaries.” (Psalm 60:11-12)

“No weapon that is formed against you will prosper.” (Isaiah 54:17)

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing!

Marvin

Shalom all,

The war between Israel and the United States, on one side, and Iran and its proxies and encouragers, on the other side, is no longer simply a military confrontation. It has become a test of competing strategies, global alignments, and regional ambitions. What began as a campaign of pressure is evolving into something far more complex – a layered geopolitical struggle in which outcomes will depend as much on alliances as on airstrikes.

At the center remains a fundamental contradiction: The United States and Israel and their allies are attempting to force change through overwhelming pressure, while Iranian regime is attempting to outlast that pressure through endurance. Around this core dynamic, additional actors: China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, and others, named and unnamed, are shaping the trajectory of the conflict in ways that may ultimately determine how it ends.

Pressure Meets Endurance – Militarily, Israel and the United States have achieved significant results. Thousands of targets have been struck, key Iranian capabilities degraded, and air superiority established in parts of Iran. Yet the Iranian regime has not yielded. Instead, it has doubled down – continuing missile attacks and rejecting ceasefire proposals, while insisting on ceasefire demands that are expansive: full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of sanctions, guarantees against future attacks, inclusion of regional allies such as Hezbollah in any agreement, and the preservation of its missile program. These are not the demands of a state seeking compromise; they are the demands of a regime signaling that it believes time is on its side.

In this sense, the current campaign risks falling into a familiar trap: confusing tactical success with strategic victory. Destroying infrastructure can degrade an adversary’s capabilities, but it does not necessarily alter its political objectives, especially when those objectives are tied to Teheran’s deeper purpose of not fighting for tactical advantage, but for regime survival. Under such conditions, absorbing damage is acceptable. Appearing weak is not.

This is why even the prospect of massive bombardment targeting nuclear facilities, missile systems, and economic infrastructure, remains strategically uncertain. Such a campaign could weaken Iran significantly, but it is unlikely to force it to surrender. The regime’s calculus is built on endurance, not quick victory.

Israel’s Position: Strength Without Resolution – Israel’s strategy remains consistent: sustained military pressure, no meaningful engagement with ceasefire demands, and close coordination with the United States. Its primary objective appears clear: neutralizing Iran’s nuclear and missile threat. The latter has already assaulted Israel with over 4,300 missiles, rockets and armed drones from Iran and its Hezbollah proxy in Lebanon and some of those projectiles have penetrated Israel’s sophisticated and multi-faceted air defense system, resulting in around 19 killed, about 3,000 injured, including dozens seriously, and considerable property damage.

However, without a defined endgame and a clear political objective, military success risks becoming an ongoing process, rather than a decisive outcome. The danger is not failure on the battlefield, it is strategic drift.

The Expanding Board: Global and Regional Players – What transforms this conflict into a geopolitical chessboard is the involvement of additional actors, each pursuing their own interests.

China: Stability Through Oil – China’s approach can be summarized simply: “oil first, politics later.” Its priority is the uninterrupted flow of energy. For Beijing, the ideal outcome is not an Iranian victory or defeat, but stability. It is likely to support diplomatic efforts while quietly opposing escalation that threatens global supply chains.

Saudi Arabia: Strategic Ambivalence – Saudi Arabia occupies a delicate position. It has long been threatened by Iran, and a weakened Iran would serve its interests. Yet it also fears the consequences of a prolonged war. This creates a dual approach: quiet alignment with efforts to contain Iran, combined with caution about entering the conflict directly. Riyadh is watching closely, weighing whether the current moment presents opportunity … or danger.

Donald Trump and the Abraham Accords – A key U.S. objective remains expanding normalization between Israel and the Arab world, especially bringing Saudi Arabia into the Abraham Accords. In this respect, the present war plays a paradoxical role. A weakened Iranian regime could accelerate normalization. But a destabilized region could delay it. Military escalation and diplomatic ambition are thus deeply intertwined, sometimes reinforcing each other, sometimes working against each other. Bringing a successful end to this war would be an item of pride for America’s achievements as it approaches its 250th year of existence.

Russia: Strategic Disruption – Russia’s potential willingness to support Iran and provide the regime with drones, weapons systems, or intelligence adds another layer. Even limited assistance could prolong the conflict and complicate Israeli operations. More broadly, Russia benefits from a prolonged crisis that diverts U.S. attention and reshapes regional dynamics in its favor.

The Turkey Factor: The Decisive Balancer? – Perhaps the most under-appreciated player in this conflict is Turkey, whose position is not one of simple alignment. It opposes the scale of U.S.-Israeli military action and warns of regional escalation, yet it also has no interest in a dominant or nuclear-armed Iran. This creates a strategic posture that is both flexible and influential. 

Turkey seeks to prevent regional collapse while ensuring that no single power emerges overwhelmingly dominant. It is also positioning itself as a mediator – engaging diplomatically while maintaining leverage with multiple sides. In doing so, Turkey is not merely reacting to the conflict; it is helping shape its possible conclusion.

A Quiet Axis? Convergence Without Alliance –What is emerging is not a formal alliance, but a pragmatic alignment among Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Each of these actors opposes unchecked U.S. and Israeli dominance; prefers a balance of power over decisive victory and benefits from limiting Western influence. 

This “axis” is fluid, not fixed. Yet its cumulative effect is significant, in that it constrains escalation, complicates military options, and increases the likelihood of a negotiated, rather than a decisive, end.

There are other players, mostly unnamed at this time, but certainly significant. Uganda, for example, represents a different category of actor – smaller states that align politically with Israel. The Ugandan Judge, who sits on the International Court of Justice in the Hague and is known for her Christian-Zionist perspective, stated about half a year ago: “God relies on me to stand with Israel… we are in the end times.” `Uganda’s willingness to side with Israel is less about direct military impact (although it is prepared to act militarily) and more about diplomatic signaling and strong Biblical undergirdings. Such support contributes to Israel’s international legitimacy, its coalition-building narratives and the perception of broader alignment beyond Western powers. 

How This Shapes the Endgame – With multiple powers involved, the likely resolution shifts. A clear military victory becomes less probable. Instead, the conflict is pushed toward a managed outcome – a gradual de-escalation shaped by external pressure, where no side fully achieves its goals, but all avoid catastrophic loss. In this sense, the war may not end with a decisive moment, but with a negotiated pause – fragile, incomplete, and subject to future breakdown.

The Cost to Israel in This Expanded Reality – For Israel, the implications of a prolonged conflict within this broader geopolitical framework are significant. 

Economically, sustained mobilization and disruption will take their toll. Socially, the strain of ongoing alerts and uncertainty will test resilience. Militarily, the risk of multi-front escalation remains ever-present.

But perhaps most importantly, diplomatically, Israel may find its freedom of action increasingly constrained. As more global actors become invested in the outcome, the space for unilateral decision-making narrows. Israel may continue to achieve tactical victories, but translating them into lasting strategic gains becomes more difficult. A cease-fire that does not resolve the core issues of the present conflict will force Israel, once again, to place its perceived future in this world into the hands of people who are trying to steal it.

A Brief Reflection Beyond Strategy – For some observers – whose perspectives are similar to those expressed by the Ugandan Judge of the International Court of Justice – the convergence of nations surrounding Israel, the growing tension among global powers, and the centrality of the Middle East in world affairs may echo patterns described in Biblical prophetic literature, particularly visions of nations aligning in complex ways around Israel in the “last days.” While such interpretations remain matters of spiritual faith more than analysis, the parallels are, at the very least, striking enough to invite reflection. The words of Israel’s prophets are becoming louder and louder as each day passes and there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen.

Conclusion: A War Shaped by Many, Resolved by None
This is no longer a conflict defined solely by Israel and Iran. It is shaped by a web of actors, each pursuing different ends.

Israel seeks security.
Iran regime seeks survival.
The United States seeks leverage.
China seeks stability.
Saudi Arabia seeks balance.
Russia seeks disruption.
Turkey seeks influence over the outcome.

These goals intersect . . . but they do not align.

And that is why the most likely end to this war is not victory, but equilibrium: a fragile balance shaped not by decisive triumph, but by the competing interests of many powers unwilling to let the conflict spiral out of control.

Writing this from our “safe room” during a missile strike. Be encouraged. We will not be moved!

Despite the craziness in this world, remember: bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

Shalom all,

For a brief moment, the world appears to be holding its breath.

In recent days, tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz – the narrow maritime artery through which roughly a fifth of the world’s oil supply flows – have surged toward the brink of open regional war. What we are witnessing is not merely another flare-up in the Middle East, but a moment that could reshape global energy markets, regional alliances, and the strategic future of Israel.

On one side stands Iran, signaling its readiness to escalate across multiple fronts and even choke off global energy flows. On the other stands the United States, led by Donald Trump, issuing warnings of overwhelming force, only to pause abruptly – to the surprise of many – and hint at a possible diplomatic breakthrough.

Between these two poles lies a volatile gray zone: not quite war, not quite peace.

But beneath the headlines is a deeper question, one that matters profoundly for Israel: What happens if diplomacy fails? And perhaps more importantly, what happens if it succeeds?

The Strategic Flashpoint: Hormuz
The Strait of Hormuz is not just a geographic chokepoint. It is the pressure valve of the global economy.

Any sustained disruption there would send oil prices soaring, rattle global markets, and trigger military intervention. Iran understands this leverage well. By threatening closure, whether through naval mines, missile systems, or harassment of commercial shipping, it effectively places its hands around, and grips the throat of, the global economy.

This is not just a forceful effort at brinkmanship. It is a determined strategy. And, it is working.

From Threats to Talks – Or Tactical Delay?
The recent sequence of events has been striking. Trump warned of devastating strikes on Iranian infrastructure. Iran did not buckle. It responded not with retreat, but with threats of “zero restraint” retaliation, explicitly including U.S. assets and Israel. Then, unexpectedly, perhaps even embarrassingly, Washington paused. Within days, reports surfaced of ongoing negotiations, even suggesting the possibility of a near-term agreement.

Tehran, however, publicly denied that any talks were taking place. This contradiction is not a minor detail. It ISthe story.

What we are witnessing may not yet be diplomacy, but positioning. The United States is applying pressure, while signaling openness to a deal. Iran is leveraging ambiguity, while maintaining plausible deniability. Both sides are testing limits, probing reactions, and carefully avoiding the appearance of weakness. Who will flinch first?

It is a dangerous equilibrium – one where a single miscalculation could ignite a broader conflict.

The Hidden Channel: Diplomacy Behind the Curtain
Despite public denials, credible reports from both American and Israeli sources confirm that a secret communication channel has been active.

At the center of this effort are unofficial but influential figures, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, operating outside traditional diplomatic frameworks. On the Iranian side, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has been the key interlocutor, reportedly conveying a critical message: He has been given a “green light” from Mojtaba Khamenei to resolve the crisis, provided however, that Iran’s conditions are met.

This detail is significant. It suggests not only that negotiations are real, but that they are being conducted with authorization from within Iran’s inner circle of power. It also implies something even more consequential: a tacit recognition by Washington of Iran’s emerging leadership structure.

For Israel, this is a red flag.

If No Deal Is Reached: The Road to Regional War
If negotiations collapse, the trajectory is deeply concerning and should be relatively clear.

The United States would most likely resume large-scale strikes. Iran could retaliate across multiple theaters. The Strait of Hormuz could become an active battleground rather than a bargaining chip.

But this would not remain a contained conflict. Iran’s strategy is inherently regional.

Through its network of proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi forces in Yemen, and militias in Iraq and Syria, it has the capacity to ignite a multi-front war stretching from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea.

Israel on the Frontline
For Israel, such a scenario would not be theoretical. It would be immediate.

Missile and drone attacks could come from multiple directions. Civilian infrastructure would face sustained pressure. Military resources would be stretched across several fronts simultaneously.

Israel would also face a complex strategic reality: If the United States fully commits, Israel becomes both a key partner as well as a primary target. If the U.S. hesitates, Israel may find itself carrying a disproportionate share of the burden.

Yet even within this danger lies paradox. A broader conflict could weaken Iran’s command structures and create opportunities for deeper regional alignment against a common threat. But those opportunities would come at a significant cost in lives, infrastructure, and economic stability.

If a Deal IS Reached: Stability or Illusion?
At first glance, a deal would seem to defuse the crisis. Shipping lanes would reopen. Oil markets would stabilize. Regional tensions would ease. But this calm may be deceptive.

However, the core issues: Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its ballistic missile program, and its network of proxies, are unlikely to be fully resolved in any rapid agreement. More likely, they will be deferred. It is the “dirty deal” problem: a framework that freezes the conflict without truly resolving it.

Israel’s Dilemma Under Diplomacy
For Israel, a U.S.-Iran agreement could be as complex as outright war.

First, it may impose constraints. Washington could pressure Jerusalem to limit military operations, reducing Israel’s freedom to act independently.

Second, it could enable Iranian recovery. A pause in hostilities would give Tehran time to rebuild infrastructure, reorganize leadership, and reinforce proxy forces.

Third, it presents a strategic dilemma: accept short-term quiet with long-term risk, or act independently and risk tension with the United States.

None of those options is ideal.

The Critical Variable: U.S. Disengagement
Perhaps the most consequential question is not whether there is a deal, but what role the United States chooses to play afterward.

If Washington steps back, either as part of a strategic recalibration or as a result of domestic pressures and priorities, the implications would be profound: A power vacuum could emerge. Maritime security could weaken. Deterrence against Iran could erode.

In such a scenario, the Middle East would shift from a U.S.-anchored order to a regional balance of power. Two blocs could solidify: An anti-Iran alignment including Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and possibly Egypt, on the one hand, and an Iran-aligned axis consisting of Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and regional militias on the other hand. This would mark a shift from global to regional balance-of-power dynamics.

Strategic Paths for Israel
In such an environment, Israel would face several possible paths. One is deeper regional cooperation. A quiet, but growing, alignment between Israel and the Gulf states could evolve into coordinated defense systems, particularly in air and missile defense. Such regional security cooperation would be beneficial for all of the countries that are part of the anti-Iran axis.

Alternatively, Israel could double down on its pre-emptive capabilities and long-range deterrence, maintaining independent military autonomy, but at the cost of increased risk to its civilian population and economy.

Another option for Israel and her neighbors would be the continuation of cyber operations, intelligence activity and covert disruption. The shadow war could become the primary battleground.

The least likely option is one that would accept Iran as a contained, but enduring threat. Pursuing a political pipe dream that Iran could be contained would be tantamount to diplomatic lunacy.

Best-Case/Worst-Case
As the current crisis hovers between escalation and diplomacy, Israel finds itself watching two very different futures unfold, each with its own risks, pressures, and strategic consequences.

In a best-case scenario, the present tension gives way to a fragile, but functional de-escalation. A limited understanding is reached between the United States and Iran, leading to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a gradual easing of immediate hostilities. In the weeks that follow, the region does not suddenly become peaceful, but it does grow quieter. Missile fire subsides, proxy forces pull back from the brink, and global markets begin to stabilize. Oil prices ease, shipping resumes, and the sense of imminent crisis fades into a tense watchfulness.

Over the next several months, Israel would likely experience a period of guarded stability. The threat from Iran would not disappear. Far from it, but it would shift back into the shadows. Intelligence operations, cyber activity, and quiet regional coordination would take precedence over open war. At the same time, a subtle, but important, realignment could deepen: Israel and key Gulf states, sharing a common concern over Iran, may continue building practical security cooperation behind the scenes. Economically, Israel would benefit from reduced volatility. Trade routes would remain open, investor confidence would recover, and while defense readiness would stay high, the broader economy could regain its footing.

Yet even in this more hopeful trajectory, the calm would be deceptive. Iran would almost certainly use the pause to rebuild, reorganize, and refine its long-term strategy. What appears as stability could, in reality, be an intermission.

By contrast, the worst-case scenario unfolds with far greater speed and intensity in the opposite direction. Talks collapse, miscalculations multiply, and within a matter of weeks the region slides into open conflict. The Strait of Hormuz becomes a battleground rather than a bargaining chip, disrupting global energy flows and sending shockwaves through the economy. The United States may initially strike hard, but if its commitment wavers, or if it chooses to limit its involvement, regional actors are left to absorb the consequences.

For Israel, this would mean immediate and sustained pressure. A multi-front war could emerge, with threats not only from Iran itself, but from its network of proxies across Lebanon, Syria, and beyond. Missile and drone attacks could become a daily reality, such as presently exist, testing the limits of Israel’s defensive systems and the resilience of its civilian population. Military reserves would be mobilized, operations extended, and the strain on national capacity would grow with each passing week.

If unresolved, the situation could harden into a prolonged conflict. If the United States reduces its role, Israel may find itself carrying a larger share of the strategic burden, operating with greater independence, but also greater risk. Regionally, alliances would become more explicit, dividing the Middle East into opposing blocs. Economically, the impact would be severe: energy costs would surge, trade could be disrupted, and growth would likely stall or contract under the weight of sustained insecurity and increased defense spending.

Between these two paths lies a narrow and uncertain space – the one that the region currently occupies. Whether the coming months bring a tense stability or a widening war will depend not only on decisions made in Washington and Tehran, but on how quickly events outpace intentions.

From an Israeli perspective, one reality stands out above all: Israel is deeply involved in the military dimension of this crisis – but not in the diplomatic one.

The terms of any agreement may ultimately be shaped in Washington and Tehran, not Jerusalem. This raises several core concerns: a deal that leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact; the legitimization of Iran’s current or emerging leadership and a loss of Israeli influence over outcomes that directly affect its security. But the fundamental question remains unchanged: Does any emerging agreement neutralize the Iranian threat . . . or merely manage it?

Final Thoughts: A Region Redefined
The coming weeks are not just about whether a deal is signed. They are about which strategic reality will define the Middle East in the years ahead: a fragile balance sustained by uneasy agreements, or a reordering shaped by conflict and shifting alliances.

For Israel, the challenge is not simply to endure either scenario, but to remain prepared for both, to anticipate and to recognize that in the Middle East, even the best-case outcome is rarely permanent, and the worst-case scenario is never as far away as it seems.

For Israel, whether through war or diplomacy, the underlying struggle with Iran is not ending. It is evolving.

For Israel, there is a bumper-sticker reminder and reality: We have no one that we can rely upon except our Father in Heaven! He has given us His Word and every Word of His has been tested. We can rely upon it, because He stands behind His Word to perform it. 

May your week be a healthy one, a safe one, and an encouraging one.

Bless, be blessed, and be a blessing.

Marvin

Shalom all.

Two weeks into the war between Israel and Iran, life in Israel has taken on a rhythm few outside the country can truly understand: the rhythm of blaring sirens that warn of incoming missiles. While missile alerts unquestionably save lives, they also interrupt meals, sleep, prayer, and work. 

This is not a rare event. It has, unfortunately, become part of daily life.

The War in Brief
The current war began on February 28, 2026, when Iran responded to U.S.–Israeli strikes on its military infrastructure with large-scale missile and drone attacks across the Middle East. Within the first days of the conflict, hundreds of ballistic missiles and drones were launched toward Israel and regional targets, including Gulf states and American facilities. Israel and its allies have since conducted major air operations against Iranian military sites, destroying hundreds of missile launchers and infrastructure facilities in an effort to reduce the threat.

Despite these strikes, Iran continues to fire missiles and drones toward Israel. But Iran is not acting alone.

Hezbollah Joins the War
Iran’s most powerful regional proxy, Hezbollah in Lebanon, has joined the fighting in coordination with Tehran. For many Israelis, this represents an even more immediate threat than missiles launched from Iran itself.

Hezbollah possesses an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles, many supplied or designed by Iran. Since the war began, the group has launched repeated barrages toward northern Israel, including cities such as:

• Haifa
• Acre
• Nahariya
• Safed
• communities throughout the Galilee

However, unlike Iranian ballistic missiles, which travel a thousand kilometers or more before reaching Israel, rockets from Lebanon cross the border in seconds. For residents in northern Israel, this means far less warning time. Instead of thirty to sixty seconds to reach a “safe room” (steel-reinforced concrete space) or bomb shelter, people sometimes have only ten to fifteen seconds between the siren and incoming missile. In some cases there is almost no warning at all.

When a launch from iran is detected, the Home Front Command usually sends out a notice to cell phones that is followed by a notice of anticipated areas that could be endangered. Then sirens sound in the different locations, and within moments the explosions follow, either as a result of interceptions from Israel’s air-defense system, or worse, the explosion of a missile or armed drone that made it through. The booms from the intercepted or crashing missiles can easily be heard and the concussion blasts can often be felt, depending upon one’s proximity to the intercepted missile.

The result is a level of anxiety that is difficult to describe. For many Israelis that means:

• grabbing a child from bed
• running down stairs
• entering a reinforced safe room
• waiting for the boom of interceptions overhead

Hotels, apartment buildings, schools, and offices all maintain bomb shelters. In many places, these shelters now serve as temporary living rooms where families gather repeatedly throughout the day and night. Some come with sleeping bags; others bring tents large enough to accommodate several individuals.

But the psychological toll is immense. People cannot always reach shelters in time. Cars stop in the middle of roads and sometimes, when they are rushing to find a convenient place to stop, they injure pedestrians who are rushing to find their own shelter. The war is not only distant missile launches from Iran. It is also a close-range confrontation with Hezbollah, an armed militia just across Israel’s northern border, who practiced long and hard to commit an October 7th-style invasion at Israel’s northern border.

Other consequence of missile alarms, particularly in the middle of the night, are: Sleep is fragmented. Children wake up frightened. Elderly residents fear falling during nighttime evacuations and move slowly down stairwells. Phones buzz with emergency notifications. Many have already suffered injuries from falling while trying to reach shelter within the limited time between the siren and the arrival of missiles or drones.

Then comes the interception overhead, and the rain of falling shrapnel and missile fragments that can follow. After two weeks, the exhaustion is visible everywhere.

The Reality on the Ground in Israel
Statistics rarely convey human experience. But the numbers themselves are staggering. Since the war began:

• More than 13,400 missile alerts have sounded across Israel.
• Iranian forces have launched over 1,000 missiles and more than 2,200 drones.
• Approximately 206 waves of missile attacks have targeted Israeli population centers.

These attacks have focused on all areas of Israel, including Jerusalem, which was once considered “off limits” and immune from enemy attacks. Israel’s early-warning system divides the country into hundreds of micro-zones, which multiplies the number of alerts.

In the first two weeks of war:
• 14 Israeli civilians have been killed
• Estimates of Israeli injured range between 2,300 to 2,750.
• Entire neighborhoods have experienced repeated alerts day and night. Some cities have experienced dozens of missile alerts in only a few days. 
(Note: I am aware of the toll that this war has taken upon the lives of the American military, and of the reports of how the American public relates to the present war. I am also aware of civilian loss of life in Iran. These are not ignored. But, the focus of this blog is how Israel is affected by these, as well as other, events.)

A New Threat: Cluster Munitions
One of the most alarming developments in the war has been the reported use of cluster munitions in missile attacks against Israel.

A cluster munition (often called a cluster bomb) is a weapon that contains dozens of smaller explosives known as submunitions or bomblets. Instead of exploding as a single blast, the weapon works in stages:

1. A missile, rocket, or bomb travels toward its target.
2. The container opens in mid-air.
3. It releases many smaller explosive bomblets.
4. These scatter over a wide area before detonating.

The result is a carpet of explosions covering a large zone, sometimes the size of several football fields. This makes cluster munitions effective against military formations, vehicles and equipment spread over a wide area.

But it also makes them extremely dangerous in populated regions. There are two primary reasons cluster weapons are controversial.
1. Wide Area Damage – Because the bomblets scatter randomly, anyone within the strike area, soldiers or civilians, can be hit.
2. Unexploded Bomblets – Some submunitions fail to detonate when they hit the ground. These become mini-landmines that can explode days, months, or even years later. For this reason, more than 120 countries have banned cluster weapons, although several major military powers have not signed the treaty. Iran is not a signatory to the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Reports indicate some Iranian missiles may carry 20–24 submunitions each, dispersing them across neighborhoods and open areas. This tactic makes missile interception much more difficult and significantly increases the danger to civilians.

The Ideology Behind Iran’s War
Behind the present military conflict lies a deeper ideological motivation within certain circles of Iran’s leadership. Some Iranian revolutionary thinkers interpret current events through Shiʿa end-times beliefs.

In these traditions, a figure known as “the Khorasani” is expected to arise from the historic region of Khorasan in northeastern Iran before the appearance of the awaited Mahdi, who can be referred to as the Islamic messianic figure, who is believed to be presently hidden by God, but who is destined to return before the end of the age. According to these traditions, the Khorasani leads forces that fight across the Middle East and eventually advance toward Jerusalem.

While Iran’s government does not officially declare that any current leader fulfills this role, analysts have noted that some radical supporters have linked the idea to figures within the Iranian leadership, including Mojtaba Khamenei, the influential second son of Ali Khamenei, who served as Iran’s Supreme Leader from 1989 until 2026, who was killed during the early days of the war.

Whether symbolic or literal, this kind of apocalyptic thinking fuels the narrative that the conflict with Israel is not merely political but historic and religious. That worldview helps explain the determination of Iran and its proxy forces to sustain a prolonged confrontation with Israel.

The Emotional Toll of Constant Alarms
For Israelis, the war is not only military. It is deeply personal. Try to imagine:

• falling asleep before midnight
• being awakened by sirens at 2:15 a.m.
• running to a safe room in the dark
• returning to bed an hour later after authorities declare the danger over
• then hearing another alarm – possibly two or three more – before dawn
Now repeat that for fourteen days.

Children begin to associate sleep with fear.
Parents live in a constant state of alertness.
Even when the sky is quiet, people remain tense, waiting for the next alarm.
Life begins to feel surreal.

Hope Amid the Fear
Despite everything, life in Israel continues. Schools operate on modified schedules. Businesses reopen between alerts. Neighbors help each other to reach shelters when apartments lack safe rooms. Inside the shelters themselves, often crowded with strangers, people share food, water, and encouragement. In some places, the camaraderie helps to calm the fear. Some people sing together. Others even dance for a moment. These things reveals something remarkable about the Israeli spirit. Missiles may target cities. But they cannot extinguish resilience.

The Uncertain Road Ahead
Military analysts say the war could continue for weeks. The United States has indicated that achieving its objectives may require four to six weeks of operations. Iran’s missile launches have dropped significantly as Israeli strikes destroy launch sites. Nevertheless, attacks continue daily. Hezbollah’s involvement on Israel’s northern border means that the danger now comes from multiple directions simultaneously.

For the people of Israel, the future remains uncertain. But some things are certain: Tonight, somewhere in the country, sirens will sound again. Families will once again hurry to safe rooms, if they have one, or race toward the nearest bomb shelter, hoping to arrive before the missiles do. 

And life will continue under the sound of the alarms.

“Do not fear, for I am with you; Do not anxiously look about you, for I am your God. I will strengthen you, surely I will help you, Surely I will uphold you with My righteous right hand.” (Isaiah 41:10)

“Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth does not become weary or tired. His understanding is inscrutable. He gives strength to the weary, and to him who lacks might He increases power. Though youths grow weary and tired, and vigorous young men stumble badly, yet those who wait for the Lord will gain new strength; They will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not get tired, they will walk and not become weary. (Isaiah 40:28-31)

Pray for wisdom for the leadership of the nation; for wisdom, strength, precision and success for the IDF; and for the nation to turn its eyes upon Him Who is invisible.

Have a great week. Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Marvin

As war intensifies between Israel and Iran, a pivotal question looms large: Will the United States join in the military campaign? Yesterday (Thursday), the White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, read aloud the President’s statement: “Based on the fact that there is a chance for substantial negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future – I will make my decision on whether or not to go within the next two weeks.” She added: “The President is always interested in a diplomatic solution … if there’s a chance for diplomacy, the President’s always going to grab it. But he’s not afraid to use strength as well….” This move on the part of Trump could potentially reshape the course of the war.

A Pause for Diplomacy?

This pause reflects Trump’s latest pivot in a week that was marked by sharp swings between his hawkish rhetoric and diplomatic restraint. Only one day before this latest announcement, Trump threatened Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, adding: “Nobody knows what I’m going to do” .

Behind-the-Scenes Talks

While waiting for “push to become shove”, and notwithstanding Israel’s ongoing strikes against Iranian nuclear and ballistic targets, U.S-Iranian dialogue has not entirely broken down. According to a Reuters report, referred to in The Jerusalem Post, Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, has been in contact several times with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Iran expressed a willingness to return to the negotiating table and that it “could [note: not “would”] show flexibility in the nuclear issue”, but it is not willing to resume negotiations as long as Israel continues its war against Iran. Notwithstand the U.S. position that Iran must prohibit uranium enrichment and dismantle its ability to produce nuclear weapons, Iran views uranium enrichment as a sovereign right and asserted that this matter is non-negotiable. Israel’s position is that Iran’s nuclear ambitions need to be dumped into the trash bin of history. 

Given the conflicting positions of the major players, a delay of two weeks to test the waters of diplomacy appears to be an exercise in futility. But, that doesn’t deter representatives of the United Kingdom, Germany and France, as well as the European Union’s foreign policy chief, from meeting with Iran’s Foreign Minister to pressure him that Iran needs to put the brakes on its nuclear program. It was pointed out that the Iranians can’t just “sit down” with the Americans, but the European representatives can and that they would urge the U.S. to consider renewing negotiations about Iran’s nuclear intentions before the situation explodes out of control. Despite Germany’s involvement in a push for renewed negotiations, German Chancellor Freidrich Merz said earlier this week that by taking action against Iran’s nuclear program, “This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us.”

The primary issue for consideration, at least from Israel’s point of view, remains to be whether the U.S. would strike Iran’s heavily fortified Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which Israeli jets may be hard pressed to reach.

Just to clarify:The Fordo facility in Iran is one of the most heavily fortified nuclear sites in the world. Israeli jets would face significant challenges if tasked with bombing it, even with advanced “bunker buster” bombs. Some of the reasons for Israel’s present difficulty are the following:

1. Extreme Depth and Fortification

• Location: Fordo is built deep inside a mountain near the city of Qom.

• Depth: It is estimated to be buried under 80 to 100 meters (260–330 feet) of rock and reinforced concrete.

• Purpose-built: It was specifically designed to withstand aerial bombardment.

Even the most advanced conventional bunker-busting bombs, such as the U.S.-made GBU-28 (used by Israel) or GBU-72, have limited penetration capabilities. The most effective bomb for such a deep facility is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) of the U.S., which is:

• 30,000 pounds (13,600 kg)

• Designed to penetrate up to 60 meters of concrete or deep rock structures. But Israel does not possess the MOP or the B-2 or B-52 bombers required to deliver it.

2. The U.S. Holds the Most Effective Weapon

• Only the U.S. Air Force has the aircraft (B-2/B-52) and bombs (like the MOP) capable of reliably damaging or destroying a site as fortified as Fordo.

• Israel’s F-15s or F-35s cannot carry the MOP due to its size and weight.

3. Risk of Incomplete Destruction

• Even if Israel used multiple bunker busters in succession (a technique called “burrowing”), there’s no guarantee of a successful strike that would disable the facility.

• Partial damage might leave centrifuge halls intact, allowing rapid repair and reactivation.

4. Operational Complexity

• Fordo is not just deep—it’s also protected by advanced Iranian air defenses, including:

◦ Russian-made S-300 systems

◦ Hardened missile and radar sites

• Israeli aircraft would need to:

◦ Penetrate heavily defended airspace

◦ Coordinate multiple refuelings

◦ Conduct a precise strike on a very small and buried target 

5. Diplomatic and Strategic Consequences

Even if it were technically possible, a bombing strike on Fordo could:

• Trigger a regional war

• Lead to Iran accelerating its nuclear program

• Put Israel at odds with key allies, including the U.S., unless the strike was fully coordinated

For the foregoing reasons, Israel cannot reliably destroy the Fordo facility with its current bunker-buster weapons or military aircraft. Fordo’s depth, fortification, and the limitations of Israel’s arsenal make it a uniquely challenging target—perhaps only vulnerable to a direct U.S. strike with strategic bombers and next-generation bunker busters.

Israeli Expectations vs. U.S. Timelines

In Jerusalem, the two-week timeline is causing visible tension. Israeli officials believe that if the U.S. intends to participate, it must act within days – not weeks. One senior official earlier told The Times of Israel, “The expectation is that they join, but no one is pushing them. They have to make their own decision.”

During an interview with one of the leading television news networks here, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the military campaign is progressing “ahead of the schedule we set – both in terms of timing and results.” and that Israel has the ability to hit all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, which of course would include Fordo, presumably even without U.S. assistance. Here and here.

Mounting Criticism and Skepticism

The Democrats are opposed to military involvement and the Republicans are split over Trump’s indecision. The concern is that America would be pulled into another, seemingly endless conflict. One Democratic U.S. Senator dismissed the president’s remarks about a two-week hold on decision-making, saying, “He’s used this ‘two weeks’ tactic a million times before to pretend he might be doing something he’s not.” But, given Trump’s track record and modus operandi, it’s worth considering that this statement may reflect a more complex calculation. And, it is quite possible that, beneath the surface of his diplomatic choreography, there lies a web of strategic ambiguity, political stagecraft, and psychological maneuvering. Time will tell and, realistically, it won’t take too long. 

Iranian Threats and U.S. Precautions

As President Trump considers a potential strike on Iran, Tehran has warned that any U.S. involvement would result in “irreparable damage to them”. Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh stated that all U.S. bases in the region are within striking distance and would be targeted in the event of an attack. 

With a significant U.S. military presence across the Middle East, these bases could, indeed, serve as launch pads for an assault – and likely face Iranian retaliation. In preparation for potential Iranian retaliation, the U.S. military has been repositioning its assets in the region, moving unprotected aircraft to other locations; U.S. Navy ships leaving ports in Bahrain; increasing blood supplies (usually indicative of anticipated potential conflict and major U.S. airlines once again cancelling flights to the Middle East (not just to Israel). Moreover, although initially standoff-ish, the U.S. has since deepened its logistical support for Israel, with at least 14 U.S. cargo planes landing here in recent days, delivering weapons and supplies to bolster the IDF.

Final Thoughts: War or Waiting Game?

President Trump’s two-week deliberation window could be either a genuine opening for diplomacy or another calculated delay. While Jerusalem accelerates its military objectives, Washington appears indecisive, caught between an urge for non-involvement and a pull toward military action. One thing, however, remains clear: Iran’s nuclear ambitions need to be brought to nought and any negotiations that do not bring this to pass will simply be another “business deal” for the benefit of the U.S., at the considerable expense of Israel. .

Whether Trump chooses the path of restraint or military engagement, the consequences – for Israel specifically, and for the Middle East and global stability generally, will be profound.

This complex and rapidly evolving situation between Israel, Iran, and the United States stands at a critical juncture. 

The most likely short-term outcomes will hinge on four key variables:

🔑 1. Trump’s Strategic Calculation: Delay or Decisive Action?

🔑 2. Israeli Military Momentum: Self-Reliance or Expecting Backup?

🔑 3. Iran’s Posture: Threats vs. Real Red Lines

🔑 4. European Mediation & International Pressure

Fordo remains the “doomsday target” – its bombing could well mark the beginning of a regional war. But, for Israel, who is already dealing militarily on seven fronts, there is no middle ground. Maybe an earthquake will do the job and put an end to Israel’s need to destroy the Fordo plant.

From the macrocosm to the microcosm:

Iran’s missile attacks on Israel occur at all hours of the day and night. Their goal is to generate as much death and destruction as possible and target Israel’s civilian population and structures. Two days ago, residential communities in Israeli cities and a major hospital in Beer Sheva were hit. A serious catastrophe was averted when the hospital director instructed a day earlier that the third floor, which is used for operations, be completely cleared and the patients removed to other locations. But, where was the world’s outcry of Iran’s blatant war crimes?

Today’s attacks on the City of Haifa also resulted in severe damage, as well as injuries to about two dozen people, with several of them being in serious condition. 

Iran’s latest missile barrages against Israel included cluster‑munitions warheads. Around seven kilometers above the ground, these ballistic missile warheads are specifically designed to break apart in mid‑flight and release multiple smaller missile bombs, each of which contain about two kilograms of explosives and could affect an area with an approximate eight-kilometer radius. This shift marks a troubling evolution in tactics – as these missiles combine speed, maneuverability, and area saturation to overwhelm Israeli air defenses and increase the risk to civilian zones.

Your prayers are genuinely solicited:

For wisdom for the government in its decisions;

For wisdom, courage, boldness and precision for the IDF to accomplish its objectives;

For a spirit of unity amongst the people of Israel;

For the people of Iran who seek to live in peace;

For the hostages, alive and dead, being held in Gaza to be released;

For the thousands of wounded, that they would receive care and be treated with compassion;

For the families who lost loved ones as a result of the Gaza War, to be comforted.

“The Lord is my light and my salvation;
Whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the defense of my life;
Whom shall I dread?

When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh,
My adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell.

Though a host encamp against me,
My heart will not fear;
Though war arise against me,
In spite of this I shall be confident.” (Psalm 27:1-3)

Whatever situation you find yourself in, there is One Who is greater than all of our problems. So remember: Bless, be blessed and be a blessing. Your rewards will be eternal.

Shabbat Shalom,

Marvin

In what experts describe as the most intricate deception campaign in Israel’s history, the Israeli government launched a major preemptive strike against Iran – code-named “Operation Rising Lion”—targeting key nuclear facilities and senior military leadership. This unprecedented operation was concealed beneath layers of real political drama and misleading signals that misdirected both domestic and foreign observers.

Strategic Deception Behind the Strike

Israel’s operation against Iran was not only a military event but a carefully choreographed illusion. Amid genuine political turmoil over the controversial Conscription Law and speculation about a potential collapse of Netanyahu’s government, military preparations proceeded in secrecy.

Disguising Intentions: Key figures, such as Mossad Director David Barnea and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, remained in Israel instead of traveling abroad for expected diplomatic consultations with U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steven Witkoff. Reports falsely suggested diplomatic priorities, while covert military plans were already in motion.

False Timelines: Prime Minister Netanyahu’s personal calendar—including a planned family vacation and his son’s wedding scheduled for the beginning of this coming week—helped foster the impression that no military action was imminent.

Information Control: Only a tightly restricted circle within Israel’s leadership was aware of the strike’s details. Even top officials were kept in the dark to avoid leaks.

Despite clear signals—like U.S. evacuation alerts in the region and increasing speculation in international media—Israel’s silence held, successfully preserving the element of surprise. Presumably, the only “outsider” who knew about the planned strike was U.S. President Donald Trump.

Operation “Rising Lion”: The Strike Itself

In the early morning hours of Friday, Israel initiated a sweeping aerial assault against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Over 200 Israeli fighter jets struck around 100 high-value targets, including:

Natanz and Fordo: Iran’s underground nuclear enrichment facilities

Military Command: Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Hossein Salami and Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri were killed, along with some other, senior personnel

Scientific Core: Six senior nuclear scientists were eliminated.

According to the IDF, the attack marked a critical point where Iran’s nuclear capabilities posed an imminent existential threat. Netanyahu emphasized that Israel could not afford to delay: “If we don’t act now, we simply won’t be here.” As one tabloid expressed it: “The danger is here, and the choice was between preemption and regret.”

The operation itself was planned and put together over a number of years. It was executed following extensive intelligence, covert operations inside Iran and meticulous planning, combined with an “extraordinary joint effort by the IDF, Mossad and Israel’s defense industries” .

Biblical Symbolism: Naming the Operation

The name “Rising Lion” is drawn from the biblical prophecy of Balaam in Numbers 23:24, where Israel is described as a powerful lion rising to conquer its enemies. This reference comes from the Torah portion Balak, where Balaam, sent to curse Israel, ends up blessing them under divine compulsion.

“Behold, a people rises like a lioness, and lifts itself like a lion; it will not lie down until it devours the prey and drinks the blood of the slain.” – Numbers 23:24

Netanyahu reportedly placed a written prayer with this verse into the Western Wall ahead of the operation, framing the strike not just as military necessity, but also as fulfillment of a prophetic vision of national survival and triumph.

Aftermath and International Reaction

Though the strike dealt a significant blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, retaliation was expected and was not late in coming.

Israel’s strike on Iran revealed deep political divides:

In Israel: Broad consensus across political lines supported the action. Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Katz, after being briefed on the results of the operation, including the pin-point elimination of military personnel and others who plotted to destroy Israel, lauded the operation as a “striking achievement” that sent a clear and unambiguous message: “Anyone working to annihilate Israel will be eliminated.”

In the U.S.: While the Trump administration backed the move, Democratic leaders and much of the international community condemned it, calling for restraint and renewed diplomacy, with very few countries taking their heads out of the sand and truly understanding “the threat that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program represents to international peace and security…”

The strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities and military capabilities may have delayed Iran’s nuclear progress and restored Israel’s regional deterrence. But, it has also heightened tensions in an already volatile Middle East. As with the October 7 attack that left Israel reeling, this strike represents a critical turning point – except this time, Israel dictated the terms. The strike also clearly demonstrated that Israel is willing – and able – to act decisively when it perceives its very existence is at stake.

What is expected to happen in the coming days? As of this writing, it appears that Iran will be acting like a wounded lion in its hatred of Israel and blood lust to retaliate against it. Within hours following Israel’s preemptive strike, Iran launched over 100 armed drones, as well as Cruise missiles, from Iran and other locations, including Iraq.  Certain television news sites published that about 850 drones were actually sent against Israel by mid-morning.

Multiple barrages of ballistic missiles punctuated the sky line over Israel during the night (between Friday and Shabbat), particularly, in the center of the country. Most of the projectiles were downed by Israel and some of its neighbors, who came alongside when push came to shove. Nevertheless, some of the missiles did manage to get through, causing major damage to property, as well as injury to dozens and, as of this post, resulting in the deaths of at least three Israels. Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Katz, said that by targeting civilian population centers, Iran “crossed red line” and that  “We will continue to defend the citizens of Israel and ensure that the Ayatollah regime pays a very heavy price for its heinous actions.” See here and here.

While many of the missiles managed to make their way to Israeli air space, it is important to note what was expressed on Channel 12 News last night. Many Iranians reported independently of one another that a number of missiles that were launched from Western Teheran mysteriously exploded seconds after being launched. It was as though the “Beeper Operation” that occurred with the Hezbollah pagers took place in Iranian missiles. The attached site is in Hebrew.

Teheran accused the United States of complicity in Israel’s actions against Iran, saying that continued U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations were meaningless and that Israel “succeeded in influencing” the diplomatic process and the Israeli attack would not have happened without Washington’s permission.” For its part, the U.S. gave mixed messages. The Secretary of State claimed that Israel’s action was “unilateral”, with Israel acting alone. The President, on the other hand, first expressed public opposition to Israel attacking Iran, but after Israel’s amazing accomplishments, he claimed to know and impliedly took credit for the preemptive strike against Iran. He gave the Mullahs 60 days to come to terms with the U.S. over their nuclear ambitions. The implications were clear. “Today is day 61…I told [Iran] what to do, but they just couldn’t get there.”

The days ahead, several key developments can be expected. These can be grouped into military, diplomatic, domestic, and regional outcomes:

1. Military Escalation: 

Continued Israeli airstrikes; Missile interceptions and damage control; Targeting of Hezbollah (if Hezbollah enters the conflict, Israel will likely open a second front in the north, including preemptive or retaliatory attacks on southern Lebanon); Cyber warfare: Both countries may escalate cyber operations, targeting infrastructure, military systems, and communications.

Regional Fallout: Proxy activation (Hezbollah, Houthis in Yemen, militias in Iraq and Syria) may launch coordinated attacks on Israel and U.S. interests in the region.

Gulf States will be on increased Alert: UAE, Saudi Arabia, and others may tighten defenses, anticipating possible spillover or being dragged into broader confrontation.

Oil Prices and Shipping: Disruption in the Persian Gulf could cause oil prices to spike; Iran may threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, impacting global trade.

Civilian and Domestic Impact in Israel: Mass Mobilization: The IDF may expand its call up tens of thousands of reservists; Casualties and Trauma: If Iran’s missile barrages continue to penetrate Israeli defenses, civilian deaths and infrastructure damage could be significant.

Internal Unity or Political Crisis: A “rally-around-the-flag” effect could occur initially, but criticism of leadership decisions might increase rapidly, if casualties increase and the government response falls short of what will be required (primarily due to lack of sufficient resources and qualified personnel).

Massive casualties: Shelters and hospitals could become overwhelmed, with insufficient staffing and facilities.

2. Diplomatic Repercussions

U.S. and Western Response:

Strong rhetorical support for Israel is likely, along with enhanced military aid; increased U.S. presence into the region and offer of interception assistance. This could be accompanied by internal U.S. dissent, urging restraint to avoid full-scale regional war and potential U.S. involvement.

UN and International Condemnation: Nothing new on this end – condemnation of Israel and expressions of sympathy for Iran, as the terror king of the Middle East.

European Mediation Efforts: France, Germany, or Turkey may seek to mediate a ceasefire to avoid uncontrollable escalation.

3. Risk of Broader War:

All-Out War Potential: If attacks on civilians in Israel escalate or Hezbollah again opens a northern front, the situation could spiral into a multi-front war resembling or surpassing the scale of 1973 or 2006.

Nuclear Threshold Tensions: In response to Israel targeting of Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran may make an all-out effort to accelerate its nuclear program in response, or even withdraw from the NPT, prompting the need for more urgent and global intervention.

4. Media and Psychological Impact:

Disinformation and Propaganda: Both sides will flood social media and news outlets with narratives to sway domestic and international opinion.

Global Protests and Unrest: Expect pro-Israel and pro-Iran demonstrations around the world, along with increased antisemitic or anti-Muslim incidents in some regions.

Final Thought: The immediate days will likely be shaped by uncertainty, escalation, and international anxiety. The key question will be: Will this stay or contain the Israel–Iran conflict, or will it become a regional or even global crisis? Much will depend on:

The scale of civilian casualties.

The duration and targets of Iranian retaliation.

The role of the United States and the West.

And whether de-escalation channels remain open, especially via backdoor diplomacy.

Just as this was about to be sent out, Iran threatened to attack the U.S., the U.K. and France. Wake up now, world! You’ll never forgive yourself tomorrow, if you don’t act today.

“I pursued my enemies and overtook them, I did not turn back till they were destroyed,” (Psalm 18:37) quoted yesterday by Israeli President Isaac Herzog.

Thank you for continuing to pray for Israel (Gen. 12:3), for wisdom for its leadership; wisdom, skill, precision and success for the IDF; for healing, grace and compassion for the wounded; for the return of all of the hostages, both alive and dead; for a spirit of national unity; for an outpouring of a spirit of repentance and a return to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Bless, be blessed and be a blessing.

Shabbat Shalom.

Marvin