Trump’s back-and-forth rhetoric is all too reminiscent of the lead-up to the previous strike on Iran

T

wo countries are holding their breath, awaiting a decision from a man for whom surprise is an art form. It isn’t only Iranian citizens waiting for President Trump to make good on his promise; in Israel too — right after the return of the last hostage — everyone is on shpilkes.

Israel is entering the third week of “the waiting period,” as people are calling it. Some have gone all the way and stocked their homes with two months’ worth of supplies; others have chosen to tune out the chatter and carry on with routine life. But a huge question mark is hovering over the country like a dark cloud.

This is not like the waiting periods that came before previous regional wars, such as the 1991 Gulf War. Then, Israel absorbed the ricochets in the first round, but it played no role in the subsequent military campaign.

Anyone tracking the movements of senior American and Israeli security officials over the last couple of weeks — these are extended stays, not quick visits — understands that this time around, the Americans are relying on Israel no less than Netanyahu depends on Trump.

The American president conducts himself in the geopolitical realm the same way he does in the business world; he constantly reshuffles the deck, carefully maintaining ambiguity and unpredictability. Still, the talk of a “beautiful armada” making its way to the Middle East demands a serious examination of the forces the Americans are deploying in the region.

Here’s a data point that came up at the most recent cabinet meeting: Ahead of the 2003  invasion of Iraq, the Americans dispatched nearly their entire fleet of aircraft carriers — 11 in total — into the area. This time, as one minister put it to me, Israel itself is perceived as the region’s largest aircraft carrier.

Just as we were going to press, Israel’s military censor permitted publication of the fact that IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir spent last weekend in Washington, participating in a series of discussions. The 12-Day War made Israel the master of Tehran’s skies. The IAF achieved air superiority within two days — a feat that stunned even the Americans.

The US Department of Defense security doctrine views the alliance with Israel as an ideal template: partnership with a state capable of going to battle on its own, drawing on the US military only at critical junctures, and without casualties.

Trump’s back-and-forth rhetoric — holding out the carrot of negotiations while warning that his patience is wearing thin — is all too reminiscent of the lead-up to the previous strike on Iran. Then, too, a genuine effort for diplomacy was made, alongside a joint operational plan between Netanyahu and Trump.

Rationally, one might assume the Iranians had learned their lesson and would take Trump’s threats seriously. But anyone following the Tehran leadership’s reactions and unrelenting provocation has to conclude that it is not rational. And this serves Israel’s ends.

When the prime minister imposed a gag order on his ministers, Bibi was tipping his hand; he’s counting on the mullahs to keep on needling the American president, who will find it hard to absorb the insult and be seen as having been cowed.

All signs point to a future strike. The deployment of Patriot batteries, alongside the THAAD system, evokes memories of those days last June. But the only person at the government table who knows whether an attack will ultimately take place has not released a shred of information. Not to the public, and not to the ministers who sit at cabinet meetings like extras.

This reflects the character of the man at the helm. Netanyahu is managing this momentous event almost singlehandedly, alongside preparing his testimony and appearing in court, while also advancing budget and conscription legislation in the Knesset in an effort to preserve his government and extend its tenure. Here too, as on the military front, Israel finds itself in a waiting period.

Show Them the Money                               

For a moment, it seemed Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman Boaz Bismuth had succeeded where his predecessor Yuli Edelstein had failed.

Bismuth had unilaterally announced the conclusion of the reading of the chareidi conscription law in his committee. It seemed that he might even secure the support of the committee’s legal adviser, Miri Frenkel-Shor, for a formula the chareidim could live with. But that hope was dashed in recent days. Frenkel-Shor’s intransigence evoked intense frustration.

“I feel she’s continuing to operate in the spirit of Yuli Edelstein, rather than that of the current chairman, Bismuth,” a chareidi MK who sits on the committee said this week.

The events echoed the days after the Iran war, when former chairman Edelstein, with the backing of the same legal adviser, violated agreements with the chareidim after the planes had returned safely to base.

The chareidi MK cited three examples that signal, in his view, a deliberate attempt to torpedo the law: “She’s demanding the law be enacted as a temporary measure — and that, among other reasons, is why the High Court struck down the previous arrangement.

“We were stunned by an additional outrageous demand to apply sanctions up to age 30, beyond the draft age, and surprised by the demand to remove from the legislation the recognition of yeshivah students’ status as a target population. And these are just a few examples among many.”

I asked the source whether the committee’s legal adviser is acting in concert with Yuli Edelstein, even after his removal from the chairmanship.

The response was cautious: “I wouldn’t say in concert, but definitely with the same mindset. She comes from the same camp and shares its value system, even though we’re still in dialogue with her. In any case, it’s important that our public know that this is not Yuli’s law, and that we’ve made significant progress with her help — but the latest additions are obstacles she knows won’t pass the rabbanim's threshold.”

It should be noted that to date, Frenkel-Shor has not issued a written opinion, expressing her reservations only verbally. Knesset legal adviser Sagit Afik, for her part, has yet to give her views — and as the one who will have to stand before the High Court to defend the law, her position will be decisive.

But given the atmosphere, with another bill on the table seeking to allow the government to ignore the legal adviser’s opinions during legislative processes, it’s hard to picture these two prominent women suddenly aligning themselves with the chareidim and turning their backs on the legal system.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1098)