fbpx
| The Rose Report |

The Clock Strikes Midnight

 Did Trump’s out-of-patience assault deal the final blow to Iranian ambitions?


Photo: AP Images

 When President Trump’s patience wore thin, his two-week deadline for a diplomatic solution with Iran shrank dramatically to just two days as he ordered the launch of B-2 bombers carrying bunker-busting bombs to inflict significant damage on three Iranian nuclear sites. These attacks, which followed eight days of Israeli aerial assaults, were inevitable as long as Iran continued its goal of producing atomic weapons.

Did the attack, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, deal the final blow to Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions? As we went to print on Monday evening, Jerusalem time, intelligence assessments were still being received and were likely to change in the coming days. There are many directions the conflict could take, including some best-case scenarios, some less favorable, and some in between.

The High Price of Escalation

While President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu exchanged compliments and congratulations after the groundbreaking US aerial attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Iran responded rapidly with an intense missile barrage targeting Israeli cities, resulting in significant property damage.

All parties involved in the conflict prepared for the brinkmanship that was sure to follow. Iran remains defiant, insisting that the war will enter a new phase with irreversible consequences, making it highly unlikely that it will surrender as President Trump demanded late last week. It was also unclear at press time whether Trump’s Saturday night attacks on Iran were a one-time event or if he would order further US strikes.

The Israeli government, emboldened by Trump’s intervention, continues its attacks on Iranian military and economic infrastructure. However, Israel hinders itself with its perceived need to minimize civilian casualties, similar to its approach in Gaza and Lebanon. It will therefore not unleash all of its military capabilities to bring Iran to its knees.

Moreover, reports indicate that Israel is running low on missile interceptors. As long as Iran possesses the ability to threaten Israel with rocket salvos, there are concerns that this could lead to a costly war of attrition without an end in sight. Israel cannot afford a prolonged conflict with Iran, as we will discuss in detail shortly.

There is still a risk that Hezbollah and the Houthis may join the fray, and even if that’s not likely, Israel must commit resources and remain vigilant on those fronts. Iran is also threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 33% of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) and about 25% of the world’s oil transit.

Sima Shine, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University and a former head of research and evaluation at the Mossad, said she views this scenario — which would trigger an inflationary spiral in energy prices — as a poor option for Iran.

“They wouldn’t do it with ships, because the US would strike them,” Shine said when speaking to the foreign press in Jerusalem on Sunday evening. “They might do it with mines, but that’s also problematic, because it would only cause the US to be more involved than they want it to be.”

Iran’s Kamikaze Protocols

Much ink has been spilled regarding the potential for regime change in Iran if the mullahs governing the country decide to flee for safety. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, holed up in a bunker near Tehran, has prepared for the future by handpicking three potential successors in case he meets his demise. There has also been speculation about the son of the former Shah of Iran returning to power, but that seems far-fetched. Michael Rubin of the Middle East Forum states that Reza Pahlavi is the most recognizable opposition figure but lacks the organizational skills and discipline necessary to run the country.

At the same time, a doomsday scenario for Iran looms in the background. Catherine Perez-Shakdam, an associate scholar at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, wrote an article over the weekend in which she described Iran’s apocalyptic “kamikaze protocol” — a doctrine of deliberate national self-sabotage in the event of an existential threat.

Perez-Shakdam is a former UN consultant who worked as a journalist on assignment in Iran, where she gained insight into the regime’s thinking. She stated that regime officials outlined a chilling scenario in high-level discussions: If Israel and its allies engage in a concerted campaign to dismantle the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and threaten the leadership’s hold over the state apparatus, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has provisioned for Iran to self-destruct in what she termed “calculated annihilation.”

“Critical infrastructure, including oil refineries, dams, energy hubs, and even civilian urban centers have reportedly been seeded with strategic weaponry and chemical agents… to be activated by IRGC operatives in acts of sabotage or to become targets for foreign powers in a way that can be weaponized in the court of public opinion,” wrote Perez-Shakdam. “The aim is threefold: ensure maximum civilian casualties, provoke environmental collapse, and — most cynically — blame Jerusalem. The regime, even in its death throes, seeks to control the narrative.”

No one would shed crocodile tears in Israel if Iran were to disintegrate. However, anarchy in a country that still possesses the know-how to create nuclear weapons represents a chilling scenario in its own right.

Who’s Got the Enriched Uranium?

Several news agencies quoted Iranian sources claiming that the regime had secretly moved its stockpiles of weapons-grade uranium to undisclosed locations far from the facilities that the US and Israel have bombed. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog monitoring Iranian nuclear sites, admits it has “lost track” of the stockpiles.

In her Jerusalem news conference, Sima Shine agreed with the assessment that Iran still possesses a stock of enriched uranium but suggested that Israel, or the US, might have destroyed some of the material that Iran can convert into a nuclear weapon during the attack on the Isfahan atomic site.

François Diaz-Maurin, the associate editor for nuclear affairs at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, wrote a piece a day before the US attack that Iran might also have undisclosed centrifuges that are already operating to enrich its uranium to weapons-grade.

So, Iran’s nuclear threat persists. Diaz-Maurin stated that before the war began, Iran possessed nearly 20 tons of enriched uranium, which includes close to 900 pounds of uranium hexafluoride gas that has already been enriched to 60 percent, which would be enough to produce up to ten nuclear weapons if enriched further.

Speculation has arisen about whether Israel was aware of the evacuation and possibly attacked the truck convoys carrying the enriched uranium in large steel cylinders. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told NBC’s Meet the Press that “no one will know for sure for days,” but he doubts Iran could have moved their stash without Israel detecting it and targeting it.

However, it’s also possible Israel may have refrained from attacking any convoys due to the risks of nuclear contamination or worse.

“Hurried transport and improper storage conditions could also significantly increase the risk of exposure to toxic chemicals,” Diaz-Maurin wrote. “If moisture enters transport or storage cylinders, uranium, especially enriched uranium, becomes more reactive, creating conditions in which a nuclear fission chain reaction could occur. This could potentially lead to a chemical explosion of the cylinders, resulting in a significant dispersion of uranium hexafluoride gas into the facility and possibly into the environment—a scenario possible even without an attack.”

So, at this stage, even though we know that the US and Israel have destroyed the majority of Iran’s nuclear facilities and Israel has successfully assassinated most of the country’s top nuclear scientists, as long as the enriched uranium remains unaccounted for, Iran’s nuclear program is down but not out.

Confidence Trumps the Fear

Israeli citizens are sadly accustomed to living with both the fears and realities of terror. However, the ballistic missiles that Iran is deliberately firing at Israeli civilians, hospitals, research institutions, and even schools, synagogues, and mosques possess far greater destructive power than anything we’ve faced before.

Some estimates of property damage already exceed NIS 20 billion (almost $600 million), and if the war continues for two months, it could cost Israel a total of $12 billion in repairs. More than 10,000 Israelis are homeless because of the missile damage. Additionally, Israel is currently facing a shortage of construction workers now that inexpensive Palestinian labor is no longer an option.

Alongside property damage, the war with Iran is costing Israel up to NIS 700 million daily (approximately $200 million), which includes expenses for missile interception systems such as the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow 3.

The US may have supplied Israel with the F-35s necessary to bomb Iran without consequence using the $3.8 billion it allocates in annual military aid. Still, it costs Israel approximately $10,000 per hour to keep the F-35s airborne.

So far, the government has managed to cover the costs by using reserve funds and reallocating resources from other departments toward defense. The Bank of Israel also holds approximately $219 billion in reserves, but tapping into that would be a last resort.

Despite the economic disruptions, Israelis are resilient. They are prepared for a war lasting one to three months, according to the results of a public opinion survey released Sunday by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.

The poll indicated that 73% of the public supports Israel’s attack on Iran, with just 18% opposed. An even higher percentage (76%) believes the government decided to go to war based on security considerations to a “large” or “very large extent,” refuting former president Bill Clinton, who told Arab News last week that “Mr. Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he could stay in office forever and ever. He’s been there for most of the last 20 years.”

Clinton spoke perhaps with a twinge of jealousy that the Constitution limited him to two four-year terms.

Founded in 1975, Arab News is Saudi Arabia’s first English-language newspaper. On its website, under its masthead, it bills itself as the “Voice of a Changing Region.”

That’s an understatement.

However, Israelis are pessimistic in one respect. Only 9% believe the Iranian nuclear threat will be entirely removed; 49.5% think it will be mostly removed; 27.5% believe it will only be slightly reduced; and 6% think it won’t be removed at all.

This belief may explain why 61% of those surveyed stated that Israel “should aim not only to neutralize the nuclear threat but also to topple the Iranian regime.”

The Isolationists Are Isolated

President Trump’s bold decision to decisively side with Israel in striking Iran’s nuclear plants showcased both his gamesmanship and statesmanship, sidelining his isolationist base while delivering a powerful warning to America’s enemies that they are no match for US resolve and firepower.

Much of the credit for the US entering the fray belongs to General Michael Erik Kurilla, nicknamed “Gorilla,” the head of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), which is the combat unit responsible for the Middle East and Central Asia. Kurilla has established strong relationships with Israel’s military and political echelons. President Trump trusts and respects the no-nonsense Kurilla, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also defers to Kurilla’s experience and expertise.

It may be premature to deliver last rites to the neo-isolationists, but when it comes to Israel and Iran, it is clear that while MAGA’s vocal flank, which includes Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Candace Owens, may have Trump’s ear, they do not have his heart or his head.

Did we overestimate the influence of the isolationist wing, or did we simply misinterpret Trump?

The author and historian Victor David Hanson stated it was the latter. In a discussion with Australian podcaster and former deputy prime minister John Anderson, Hanson argued that Trump was never an isolationist but rather what he referred to as a “punitive, Jacksonian nationalist.”

“He feels now and then that somebody has to be taken on for the benefit of the United States and the Western world,” Hanson said. “These are the problems that face the Western world, and when they get to the point that they’re pressing us on deterrence, [Trump is] going to remind them that what they’re doing is stupid.”

Hanson suggests that Trump is angry at the European NATO nations, which have a combined population of 450 million and a GDP larger than that of the US but are stingy when it comes to contributing to their defense. They rely on America to pay 70% of NATO’s bills.

By the time most of you read this, we will know how this unfolded, as NATO has scheduled its annual conference for Tuesday and Wednesday in the Hague.

Chances are Trump will win at least private accolades for his decision to come to Israel’s defense by striking Iran. NATO nations have fretted ever since Trump returned to office that he will leave them to their own devices to face Russia and other military threats on the continent.

They can now be more confident that the US will stand up for them if need be, just as it stuck up for Israel.

 

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1067)

Oops! We could not locate your form.