Inside an insiders’ debate on what should come next in the Iran war

The intrepid right-wing American-Israeli pundit Ruthie Blum and I debated today on ILTV whether it is wisest to continue the war — or pause it and see if the new Iranian leaders are less stupid. To be clear, we both agree that the Islamic Republic is a menace to everyone including its people, and would like to see an end to its nukes, missiles and proxy militias undermining the countries of the region. But Ruthie is more … how shall I put it .. hardline.

Ruthie, who once worked in Netanyahu’s office, seems to think this is a once-in a-lifetime opportunity to end a huge threat that has no conceivable reason to exist. I am somewhat equivocal on the question, but could see a pause that would give the West a chance to see if a diktat can be imposed. To be clear, at this point I would resume the war if the mulishness persisted. And I would add to the three demads outlined above another one for constitutional changes in Iran, especially an end to clerical vetting of presidential candidates — which would open the door to a peaceful transition.

I care about saving the Iranians, you see, and the international principle known as R2P — the “Responsibility to Protect.” More on that in coming days.

UPGRADE TO ASK QUESTIONS LATER HERE

Maayan Hoffman, the host, suggested that idea, of compelling change, was “utopian.” Maybe. I’ve lived long enough to see stranger things happen — like the collapse of communism and, well, the election of Trump. Twice. The second time after trying to execute the first presidential election theft in American history. So life is strange. And prophesy is foolish.

I hope you watch the debate, because it represents something of a global faultline in the dispute between the right and something I’d call the center — and extends beyond the Middle East alone. And if you hate video — which is inefficient for messaging but priceless for body language — I offer the full transcript below.

Next, here’s a cross-post of the argument of centrist former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant (who Netanyahu fired in late 2024 for not being a yes-man, and replaced him with a yes-man made of straw and lickspittle). Gallant argues for “finishing the job.” We present his case in full.

Finish the Job

Yoav Gallant

What began on Saturday, February 28, was not a surprise. It was an inevitability.

For years, Iran pursued nuclear weapons, built a missile arsenal capable of reaching Europe and beyond, and funded a network of proxy forces whose sole purpose was to kill Americans, Israelis, and anyone who stood in Tehran’s way. For years, the world negotiated, sanctioned, and hoped. Iran responded with enrichment, with terror, and with contempt.

This time, the United States and Israel acted.

I know what this moment looks like from inside the command chain, because I spent years preparing for it. In July 2023, while serving as Israel’s minister of defense, I began planning for the scenario in which a strike on Iran would become necessary. The first requirement was clear: before any offensive operation against Iran could succeed, its air defense systems had to be dismantled. That is what Israel methodically achieved through the strikes on Hezbollah and Iranian air defenses in 2024, which opened the corridor that is being used today.

The sequence unfolding now follows a logic that those of us in the defense establishment have long understood. First, you strike fleeting and mobile targets: military and political leadership, weapons scientists, command and control nodes. These are the targets that disappear if you wait. So far, this phase has been successful, with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei killed in strikes on his compound in Tehran alongside many other political and military leaders.

Then, you move to the missile infrastructure: the launchers, the production facilities, the storage sites. The decisive point in any military campaign is the elimination of the enemy’s ability to act effectively against you. In the Iranian case, that means one thing: destroying its ability to launch missiles, above all ballistic missiles. Once that capability is gone, everything else follows. The nuclear program, the remaining military infrastructure, all of it can be addressed. But the launchers and missiles come first. That is the sequence that wins.

Iran’s retaliation, including missiles and drones fired at Israel, at US bases across the Gulf, and at the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, countries that did not seek this confrontation, is not a sign of strength. It is desperation. A regime that fires indiscriminately is a regime that fears it may not have the chance to fire again. The response follows pre-prepared scenarios, but it is difficult to alter those in real time. There is no strategic situation assessment weighing Iran’s objectives, and as a result the tactical actions at times contradict broader considerations. The strikes in June 2025 already degraded Iran’s missile stockpile significantly. The ongoing retaliation is an attempt to use what remains before it is gone.

This is precisely why the operation must continue. The greatest risk now is not escalation. The greatest risk is stopping too soon. A wounded Iran with surviving nuclear infrastructure and a fractured but intact missile capability would be far more dangerous than one that has been comprehensively disarmed. Half-measures do not produce stability. They produce the next war.

What started on October 7, 2023 was not a single battle. It was the beginning of an extended campaign against the entire Iranian axis. Hamas was dismantled. Hezbollah was severely degraded. Assad’s regime fell. The Sinwar effect, as I have called it, has now reached the source. The organization that funded, armed, and directed every one of those groups is itself under fire. The wings of October 7 have carried the consequences all the way to Tehran.

No other country in the world can convert real-time intelligence into operational execution at this speed and scale. The Israeli Air Force launched its largest combat sortie in history on Saturday, striking over 500 military targets with approximately 200 fighter jets. What you are witnessing represents years of investment compressed into seconds.

President Trump’s call for the Iranian people to seize their future is not merely rhetoric. Iranians have taken to the streets following the news of Khamenei’s death, in Karaj, Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, and beyond, despite security forces opening fire on those celebrating. The protests of recent months, the largest since 1979, demonstrated that the regime’s grip was weakening from within. Military action from outside and popular pressure from inside are now converging on the same target. This is the combination that changes the balance of power.

You do not change a regime from the air. Military action can strip a regime of its nuclear and military capabilities and remove a murderous leadership, but it cannot decide who will rule Iran next. That decision belongs to the Iranian people. They deserve better than a regime that has stolen their future for nearly half a century.

For Israel, for the United States, and for every nation that has lived under the shadow of Iranian aggression, this is a historic inflection point. The regime that chanted “Death to America, death to Israel” for 47 years is now facing the consequences of its choices. Its supreme leader is dead. Its military chain of command is fractured. Its proxies are acting out of vengeance, not strategy.

Do not stop. Do not negotiate with a regime that negotiated in bad faith while its centrifuges spun. Finish the job. Destroy the missile arsenal, eliminate the nuclear program, and let the Iranian people determine their own future. The coming weeks will shape the coming decades. That is no longer a prediction. It is happening now.