Israel has reportedly urged President Trump to postpone any immediate military action against Iran. Contrary to much of the public speculation surrounding this position, Israeli decision-making is not rooted in diplomatic hesitation or internal pressure,or lack of defense systems but in a sober intelligence assessment. Israel’s intelligence establishment has concluded that the current moment is strategically unfavorable for a strike and that such an action would be unlikely to achieve its most ambitious objective: the collapse of the Iranian regime.
At the heart of this assessment lies a clear-eyed understanding of how authoritarian systems survive. Regime change in Iran is not determined by popular dissatisfaction alone, but by the continued loyalty of the state’s coercive institutions most notably the regular army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). While Iran has experienced widespread protests in recent years, including demonstrations that openly challenged the legitimacy of the ruling system, these movements have temporarily receded. This is not because public grievances have disappeared, but because the regime has demonstrated a willingness to use unprecedented and brutal force to suppress dissent.
Israeli intelligence analysts assess that as long as the Iranian military and the IRGC remain cohesive and willing to shoot protesters, the likelihood of regime collapse remains low. History has shown repeatedly that authoritarian governments fall not when protests erupt, but when security forces fracture, refuse orders, or shift allegiance. At present, there is no credible indication that such a split is imminent within Iran’s power structure.
Supporters of an immediate military strike argue that delaying action carries its own risks. From this perspective, Iran’s continued progress in missile development, regional proxy warfare, and nuclear-related capabilities presents a growing threat to Israel and its allies. Proponents contend that striking now could degrade Iran’s military infrastructure, deter future aggression, and demonstrate resolve. They also argue that military pressure might reignite internal unrest by exposing the regime’s vulnerabilities and undermining its claims of strength.
However, Israeli intelligence assessments suggest that these potential benefits are outweighed by significant drawbacks under current conditions. A strike conducted while the regime maintains firm internal control could instead strengthen the leadership’s grip on power. External military action often enables authoritarian governments to rally nationalist sentiment, silence dissent, and justify even harsher repression under the banner of national defense. Rather than weakening the regime, an attack could consolidate elite unity and marginalize opposition forces.
Another key concern is strategic timing. The recent protest wave in Iran, while significant, has been blunted by force rather than resolved politically. This suggests that social pressures remain beneath the surface. Israeli officials believe that these tensions are cyclical, not extinguished. Acting now, when the streets are quiet and the security apparatus is fully mobilized, would squander the possibility of aligning external pressure with internal instability at a later stage.
Furthermore, an immediate strike risks triggering a broader regional escalation without achieving decisive results. Iran retains substantial retaliatory capabilities through allied militias and proxy forces across the Middle East. A conflict launched without a realistic path to regime collapse could therefore result in prolonged instability rather than strategic resolution.
For these reasons, Israel appears to favor patience over urgency. The prevailing assessment is that a more favorable opportunity would arise during a renewed wave of internal unrest—one in which the regime’s coercive capacity is strained, legitimacy is eroded, and cracks within the security forces become more plausible. Only under such conditions could external military pressure meaningfully alter the internal balance of power.
In short, Israeli intelligence concludes that the Iranian regime will not collapse as long as the army and the IRGC remain willing and able to fire on their own population. Until that reality changes, restraint is viewed not as weakness, but as strategic prudence.
