Israel is hatching a plan in case of disruption of negotiations between the United States and Iran on the nuclear issue. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has begun working out a military scenario against the Islamic Republic. It involves a week-long campaign to attack its nuclear infrastructure. It remains questionable whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will receive any approval for this plan from the White House, which is still in dialogue with Tehran. The parties plan to hold a new round of “nuclear” consultations in Rome on May 23, but the process is complicated by serious disagreements.
Israeli sources told the Axios portal that the IDF is practicing strikes on Iran. According to them, the reason for the military simulation was the Israeli intelligence community’s confidence that the US-Iranian negotiations on the nuclear issue would soon break down.
The time window for organizing an effective strike against Iran may close soon, so Israel will have to act quickly, Israeli sources tell Axios. “There were a lot of exercises, and the US military sees everything and understands it perfectly,” says one of them. – Bibi (Netanyahu’s nickname. – “NG”) is waiting for the moment when the nuclear talks break down and Trump is disappointed with the negotiations and is open to giving him the go-ahead.”
According to the interlocutors of Axios, the military campaign against Iran will not be a one-time event: in the most negative scenario, the Islamic Republic will face a wave of Israeli attacks on its nuclear facilities, which will last at least a week.
The other day, CNN channel, citing US intelligence data, confirmed the fact of Israeli preparations. According to his sources, the likelihood of a violent scenario on the part of the Jewish state has increased significantly in recent months, because the prospect of concluding a nuclear agreement between Washington and Tehran that would lead to the complete dismantling of Iran’s uranium enrichment program is fading before our eyes due to the stubbornness of the parties.
American officials, in a conversation with CNN, make it clear that Israeli preparations have not been coordinated with the United States, and any IDF strike would be Netanyahu’s “audacious break” with the administration of President Donald Trump, which has been talked about in recent weeks. Axios sources in the American establishment also draw attention to the fact of a possible lack of coordination: the United States fears that a wave of Israeli attacks on Iran, which will inevitably lead to a protracted regional crisis, will be committed behind the back of the White House. But officials at the same time admit that the Israeli side may simply be exerting psychological pressure on its long-time regional opponent.
Tehran reacts painfully to rumors. “Iran warns the Zionist regime (Israel. – “NG”) rejects any rash actions and declares that any threats or violations by this regime will be met with a tough and decisive response, said Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in a letter to the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “We are also convinced that in the event of an attack on the nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran by the Zionist regime, the US government will be complicit in this attack and will bear legal responsibility for it.” The minister warned: “Iran will be forced to take a number of measures to protect its nuclear facilities, which the IAEA will be informed about.”
In turn, the official representative of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Major General Ali Mohammad Naeini, issued a statement that the Jewish state “will receive a crushing and decisive response to its vulnerable and small territory” if it “decides on stupidity and commits aggression.”
The fifth round of negotiations between the Iranian and American sides to resolve the contradictions surrounding the Iranian atom is scheduled to take place on May 23 in Rome, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic confirmed. However, its effectiveness is questionable. Washington is not ready to concede to Tehran on the issue of maintaining its uranium enrichment program, even at minimal, “civilian” levels. In an interview with Saudi media, Araghchi explained that uranium enrichment is of exceptional value to the Iranian people because this technology is not the result of imports, but of national developments. According to him, the program was paid for, among other things, with the blood of nuclear physicists, a number of whom Israel eliminated through sabotage operations.
Previous rounds of negotiations on the Iranian atom were held in Oman. Tehran has now asked Muscat to convince the Trump administration to soften its maximalist position on the issue of enrichment, the opposition satellite channel Iran International reported, citing two diplomatic sources in Tehran. “Given the dependence of Iran’s financial markets, currency, gold and stocks on the results of the negotiations, the message (to Oman. – “NG”) it is emphasized that a diplomatic compromise is possible if the United States softens its approaches,” one of the sources of Iran International quotes the essence of the request of Iranian diplomats to the Omanis.
However, the channel’s interlocutors emphasize that Tehran is concerned about the lack of a clear diplomatic alternative to the negotiation process in the event of its total breakdown. According to them, the Iranian leadership currently has no backup strategy for overcoming the internal economic crisis and governing the country in the event of an Israeli operation, especially one designed for at least a week.
This is also confirmed by Iranian sources of the Reuters news agency. The other day, they reported that Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei has no plan “B” in case diplomatic attempts to resolve the long-standing dispute over the nuclear program fail. “Iran will avoid escalating tensions, it is ready to defend itself,” the Reuters interlocutors make a reservation. But all Iran can do in response to the escalation, they said, is to strengthen “ties with allies such as Russia and China.” At the same time, it is not specified what kind of cooperation is being discussed.