Decision Pending: Why the Silence from the White House May Mean the Iran Strike is Off

As American military assets continue to pour into the Persian Gulf, a debate is intensifying within the highest levels of global intelligence over whether a strike on Iran is actually imminent. Dr. Eyal Hulata, the former head of Israel’s National Security Council, has cast doubt on the likelihood of an immediate attack, suggesting that the sheer volume of public discussion surrounding the potential operation is a sign that a final decision has not been reached. In a candid interview with 103FM, Hulata analyzed the complex power equations at play, noting that while the Iranian regime has been severely weakened by a horrific internal crackdown, the window of opportunity for an effective American intervention may have already closed. With reports of tens of thousands of fatalities in the streets of Iran, the world is watching to see if the White House will choose military force or use its massive naval presence as a final diplomatic hammer.

The Absence of Tactical Surprise

One of the primary reasons for skepticism regarding an immediate strike is the public nature of the current buildup. Dr. Hulata pointed out that effective military operations typically rely on an element of surprise, which has been entirely sacrificed in the current media cycle. "It doesn’t look like Trump has made a decision. This is not how you organize an attack, when you talk about it so much," Hulata explained. He argued that the Americans would need at least a tactical surprise to catch the regime before it can move its most sensitive assets, such as nuclear components and command centers, into deeper hiding. According to his assessment, the constant chatter from Washington and the media is a strong indicator that the plans remain in the theoretical phase.

The former NSC chief also highlighted the shift in the internal Iranian situation. The widespread protests that began in late 2025 appear to have been suppressed with extreme and unprecedented violence. "The protests have been completely crushed, there are apparently tens of thousands of Iranian fatalities, and the public has been driven back into their homes," Hulata noted. He described the events of the last several days as a mass slaughter on a scale rarely seen, suggesting that if the US does not act to facilitate a coup or a successful regime change, any limited strike could be seen as a failure for the President.

Strategic Consequences and the Risk to Israel

Despite the internal devastation, the Iranian regime remains dangerous, and the question of how it would respond to a US strike looms large. When asked if a strike would trigger a direct war with Israel, Hulata was cautious but firm. While he acknowledged that Iran might feel pressured to retaliate, he warned that attacking Israel would be a fatal error for Tehran. "I think it would be a very big mistake on their part to attack Israel in response to an American strike. Israel would respond forcefully, and those would be very expensive and critical infrastructure targets for the Iranian regime and economy," he said. He added that the Israeli military currently maintains more freedom of action than the Americans, making any Iranian escalation against the Jewish state a high risk gamble for a regime that is already teetering.

Ultimately, Hulata believes the current American strategy may be a form of extreme psychological pressure designed to force the Iranian leader to the negotiating table. With the regime weakened and its population traumatized by state violence, Washington is looking for a "power equation" that results in the total halting of the nuclear program without a protracted war. However, as the window of opportunity for a regime-toppling move fades, the world remains in a tense holding pattern, waiting to see if President Trump will pull the trigger or settle for a diplomatic surrender.