لحظة ادراك

 

 “It’s the Sixty-First Day … Donald Trump”

 With the start of Israeli military operations against Iran at dawn on Friday, June 13, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said: “The game has just begun, and we pray for Israel.” He was followed by Donald Trump, who declared: “I gave Iran sixty days, and this is the sixty-first day.” Then came Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement: “These operations were originally planned for the end of April, but for various reasons, they were delayed to this timing.” These three statements are more than enough to say everything — about the farce of negotiations the United States conducted with the Iranians, negotiations based essentially on stripping Iran of its right to enrich uranium on its own soil — a right Iran believes is guaranteed under international law, at a specific limit defined by the Iran–U.S. nuclear deal during the Obama era, which Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from in 2018, despite it having international legitimacy granted by the UN Security Council, and under pressure from Netanyahu, even though the deal at the time served U.S. strategic interests.

The Americans entered these negotiations fully aware that the Iranians would never agree to relinquish this card. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had stated clearly: “A nuclear program without enrichment on Iranian soil has no real value.” In that, he acknowledged a reality he both expected and fully understood — that acquiring enriched uranium from outside the country, which Iran is supposed to agree to, would be subject to arbitrary and often baseless conditions.

Thus, the sixty-day period was necessary for preparing the theater of military operations and completing the technical and logistical details arranged by Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and Mossad chief David Barnea with the American side. The launch code for the military strikes — on the sixty-first day — would not be postponed for the sake of the Sunday meeting with the Iranians in Muscat. The goal: a shock-and-awe tactic, similar to the Baijar strike against Hezbollah.

After the dust settled from the first strikes, the initial toll was twenty of Iran’s top military and nuclear leaders — along with their families — targeted in their homes while in complete relaxation for at least two days following the anticipated Sunday meeting between Brett McGurk and Abbas Araghchi in Muscat. A hundred high-value targets were hit — military, nuclear, and everything in between. When Ali Khamenei emerged from the shock, he found himself personally forced to come up with answers to what had occurred, simply because most of those expected to provide those answers were no longer alive. In short, Mossad agents moved under the cover of night while people were asleep, directing dozens of drones at bedroom windows. It was over — on the soil of a country that learns nothing from its past.

Then came the cascading waves of death, raining down on strategic facilities with little to no resistance from air defense systems — many of which had already been taken out in prior strikes, and with no one left to issue operational orders to what remained functional.

Iran, in haste and amid massive losses, scrambled to fill the gaps. By Friday noon, it launched a hundred drones toward the culprit. All were intercepted before crossing the border. By evening, the skies of the Middle East lit up with hundreds of missiles in the familiar “tit-for-tat” exchange. Most were destroyed before entry; the few that got through were intercepted by layered defense systems. Of those that landed, only the injuries and deaths of civilians were highlighted by Israel’s “Government of Legends” media machine — no mention of bases or airfields, except for what was carefully released: 170 injuries and three fatalities among soldiers.

Israel resumed its strikes on Tehran and other worn-down areas of Iran. Ministers from the “Government of Legends” had already declared: “We will burn Tehran if civilians are targeted.” The strikes expanded to vital economic installations like gas fields and fuel depots. The Iranian response became more focused — targeting Israeli population centers, particularly Tel Aviv and strategic installations in northern Israel and the Haifa Gulf.

It is evident that those directing the military campaign have chosen Israel’s own weak spot — its densely populated urban core — as the pressure point to halt attacks on Iran.

Iran knows full well that these operations would not be happening without a green light from Washington to Netanyahu — the goal being to drag Iran back to the negotiating table, this time realizing that its nuclear program and uranium enrichment goals are no longer viable. This is underpinned by the report of Rafael Grossi, Director General of the IAEA, which strongly criticized the opacity of Iran’s program and raised serious suspicions — supporting Netanyahu’s “golden intel” claim that Iran is mere days away from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

Netanyahu makes no secret of his long-standing score-settling with the Iranian regime — a history with no clear end. For three decades, Iran’s hand has been in every major Israeli crisis, most recently in the Al-Aqsa Flood and the seven-front war launched against Israel. Netanyahu’s goals do not necessarily align with Washington’s short-, medium-, and long-term perspectives. His real aim is regime change in Iran — and his repeated appeals to the Iranian people, invoking ancient Jewish–Persian friendship, leave no doubt about his intentions.

The key question remains: how far is the United States willing to accommodate Netanyahu’s ambitions?

The answer: as far as Iran poses no direct threat to U.S. interests, or until Israel faces an existential threat due to ongoing military operations — a scenario Iran has carefully avoided so far, despite knowing that U.S. involvement has been present every step of the way, as admitted by Iranian officials themselves.

The Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear project enjoys overwhelming support among the Israeli public — comparable to post-October 7 sentiments. They may even support Netanyahu’s unspoken goal of regime change. But the coming scenes from Rishon LeZion, Bat Yam, Rehovot, Petah Tikva, Herzliya, and Haifa — and how deeply they are impacted in the coming hours and days — will determine whether public support holds or declines. That support is the decisive factor in the entire equation, especially as active diplomatic contacts continue among key world capitals regarding developments on the ground.

Israel, for now, is pushing forward with its military strikes — expected to target regime strongholds in retaliation for images of civilian corpses pulled from Tel Aviv rubble. We do not expect any substantial change in Iran’s response strategy. The cultural, ideological, and religious differences between the societies are profound — and they work in Iran’s favor.

Iran’s population has been conditioned for years to tolerate loss, especially under banners like Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the Palestinian cause — symbols that still galvanize world attention and outrage. These motivators will ensure Iranian resilience and even mobilize Arab and Islamic public support. Geographical size, population scale, and socioeconomic conditions also favor Iran: a land 70 times larger than Israel, with 10 times its population, and just a quarter of its per capita income.

The decisive factor, however, remains unwavering U.S. support for Israel — militarily, politically, and economically.

Netanyahu only began this chapter with clear American guarantees — at a minimum, to disable Iran’s nuclear program and bring Iran humiliated to the table under U.S. conditions (Trump’s ideal scenario); at most, to destroy the nuclear program entirely and keep Iran under perpetual sanctions.

All of this hinges on Iran’s resilience and how the military operations evolve. Iran now faces two bitter options:

Retreat from its uranium enrichment principles under Israeli strikes — a retreat that would diminish the regime’s standing domestically and abroad, prompting public backlash over the question: “Why endure all this if this is the outcome?”

Resist and uphold its principles — despite the consequences. This is the regime’s preferred path, having built its legitimacy on anti-U.S./anti-Israel rhetoric and its claim to Islamic leadership.

This is what Netanyahu is banking on — which may force U.S. military engagement to resolve what Israel cannot on its own.

Only delusional analysts can downplay the impact of Israel’s initial strike on Iran. It exposed serious domestic security flaws. A country 2,000 kilometers away pulled off such a blow not overnight, but after embedding deep intelligence networks in Iran. Assassinations of nuclear scientists, sabotage of nuclear sites, and theft of the entire nuclear archive were no coincidence.

A state that didn’t know how its president’s plane crashed, or took over 24 hours to locate him, or couldn’t prevent the assassination of a visiting resistance leader, cannot ensure the security of its institutions. Iran’s skies are no better — wide open and exposed. Israeli officials now say: “The road to Tehran is open.”

---

Conclusion:

Five days into the Israeli military campaign, launched by Netanyahu on June 13, and the picture is already clear — for those who wish to see reality:

The U.S. President personally engaged in deceiving the Iranian regime — luring it to negotiations on a single issue (uranium enrichment) he knew Iran would never concede, all while preparing for war.

Trump’s “Sixty-First Day” line has become the symbolic trigger for strikes — calling Iran back to talks under impossible terms. Iran’s refusal now only reinforces its path forward — and validates U.S./Israeli escalation.

Military coordination between Israel’s strategic affairs chief, Mossad, and Trump’s administration has already moved from covert to overt U.S. involvement — not days away, maybe just hours. Believing Israel is flying daily 4,000 km to Iran and back repeatedly is fantasy — U.S. bases and depots nearby are the true operational backbone.

Netanyahu never intended to stop at uranium enrichment. His rhetoric amid ruins in Bat Yam — “This is from one missile, imagine tens of thousands” — signals a much broader objective.

The fall of the Iranian regime post-October 7 and after Israel’s losses is viewed as inevitable in Israeli–American mid-term strategic thinking. Netanyahu wants quick collapse but is still working within agreed boundaries.

Iran’s security collapse, even after the initial strike, suggests Hezbollah-like vulnerability before its 2006 near-collapse. U.S. and Israeli intelligence reach deep into Iran — possibly enough to shape the regime’s future structure.

Trump’s tweet Monday night, just before abruptly leaving the G7 summit in Canada — urging Tehran’s civilians to flee — was a naked admission of U.S. military participation and command. Intelligence updates have emboldened him, and he won’t let Netanyahu steal the moment. Later White House attempts to downplay it failed — because there’s no negotiating table left.