Israeli officials assessed on Sunday that a strike on Iran was unlikely to take place this week, even as tensions with Tehran entered what they described as a particularly sensitive period and Washington weighed its next steps.
In Jerusalem, officials tracked US moves closely and described the relationship as strategic and ongoing, while pointing to gaps that complicated Israel’s planning. Those gaps included differences in available information, differences in how intentions were assessed, and limits on Israel’s ability to shape decisions in real-time as discussions in Washington could, within weeks, lead to either a dramatic military decision or a diplomatic agreement with long-term regional implications.
The prevailing assessment in Israel did not point to immediate US action, with officials speaking in terms of weeks rather than days. Still, they believed that if Washington ultimately chose a military option, Israel might receive only a short warning.
Israeli defense officials argued that short notice posed a practical challenge. Readiness for a regional confrontation required time for the Air Force and air defense systems, as well as preparation of the home front and diplomatic coordination with additional partners. When key details remained in Washington, officials said, Israel had to close intelligence and planning gaps on its own, sometimes relying on indirect indicators and operating with limited certainty.
US-Iran diplomacy and ballistic missiles
Beyond the question of a strike, Israeli officials focused on the direction of US-Iran diplomacy. The central concern, they said, was not an agreement in principle but a partial arrangement that addressed Iran’s nuclear program while leaving its ballistic missile program outside the framework.
In Israel’s view, ballistic missiles represented an immediate and growing threat. Officials argued that the missiles strengthened Iran’s deterrence posture and could provide strategic cover even before Iran crossed any nuclear threshold. The issue, they said, repeatedly came up in discussions between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump.
Iran’s position on missiles remained firm, according to the assessment cited in the report. Tehran showed willingness to discuss issues tied to sanctions relief and limited oversight mechanisms while treating missiles as a sovereign capability and a tool meant to offset US and Israeli air superiority. That approach, Israeli officials said, left Washington with a difficult choice between pressing for a broader deal that could collapse talks or settling for a narrower understanding that left missiles and Iran’s regional proxies outside any agreement.
The report also pointed to internal tensions inside Iran. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was described as prioritizing ideological resolve and resisting any appearance of capitulation, while other political and economic interests were seen as favoring sanctions relief and greater stability amid ongoing domestic pressures. Even so, the report assessed that ultimate authority remained with Khamenei and that Tehran was likely to maintain clear red lines.
Israeli officials also looked to Iran’s internal calendar, arguing that the approach of the “Fajr” period, a symbolic time for the regime, typically led Tehran to close ranks and project strength outward.
Israeli officials assessed that either pathway carried risks. If military action took place, they expected Iran to seek a painful response while trying to avoid steps that would trigger a full-scale war. If diplomacy produced a nuclear arrangement that did not address missiles, officials warned that Iran could continue improving range, accuracy, and launch capacity while benefiting from reduced economic pressure that expanded its operational freedom. In Israel’s assessment, a delayed nuclear timeline would still leave the missile threat growing at its own pace until the two tracks converged.
In recent weeks, Israel intensified efforts to influence US decision-making by presenting updated intelligence on Iran’s missile capabilities, the report said. The goal was to ensure missiles remained central to any American decision, whether military or diplomatic, and to prevent a scenario in which a narrower agreement created new space for Iran to expand the most immediate threat Israel said it faced.