[News] As Trump Talks Peace, Israel Decides Where to Attack Next

[Anti-Imperialist News]

palestinechronicle.com
<https://www.palestinechronicle.com/as-trump-talks-peace-israel-decides-where-to-attack-next-analysis/>
As Trump Talks Peace, Israel Decides Where to Attack Next – AnalysisDecember
21, 2025
------------------------------
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, US President Donald Trump and Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (Design: Palestine Chronicle)

*By Robert Inlakesh
<https://www.palestinechronicle.com/writers/robert-inlakesh>*

Israel’s leadership is using a manufactured “ceasefire” and US-backed
diplomatic cover to prepare for expanded wars against Iran, Gaza, and
Lebanon, risking a regional conflict it may not be able to control.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sizing up his next target and,
according to reports, will request greenlights upon his planned visit to
Mar-a-Lago later this month. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump continues
to claim that he has achieved “peace in the Middle East.”

Far from any kind of comprehensive peace deal, the Trump administration has
managed to not only set up the entire region for catastrophe. This has been
done through giving Israel a free hand, as well as securing a decisive
victory over international law at the United Nations.

NBC News, citing anonymous US officials, has released a report claiming
that Israel is growing increasingly worried about Iran’s rapid development
in the sphere of ballistic missile production and alleged reconstruction of
nuclear facilities, struck this June by both the US and Israeli air forces.
Given Tel Aviv’s anxiety, Netanyahu is said to be seeking Washington’s
support in a new offensive campaign against the Islamic Republic.

Although it has long been hinted that a new round, acting as a continuation
of the 12-Day War earlier this year, is only a matter of when and not if, a
new assault on Iran is not the only point of concern in the region.

An aggressive propaganda campaign has been launched domestically by the
Israeli Hebrew media over the past months, working to convince the
population that a brief war of aggression is required in order to combat
any potential threats from Lebanese Hezbollah.

This warmongering propaganda has proven successful, as polling data
collected by the Israeli Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) for
the month of November suggests the following:

“…Most respondents believe the situation in the north requires a return to
fighting. When asked whether the current security situation in the north
provides sufficient security for residents or requires renewed fighting,
only 34% of the public said it provides security. Another 41.5% favor
resuming limited fighting, while 10.5% support a return to intensive
fighting, including ground maneuvers. Overall, a majority (52%) believes
fighting should be renewed, although most prefer limited fighting rather
than a broad campaign.”

According to this same data, roughly 74% of respondents said Iran is a
cause of concern, 65% agreed that Gaza is, and 64% said the same of
Lebanon. Overall, the situation in the West Bank ranked number one;
however, 77% said they were worried about the issue. This is a reflection
of a greater trend among Israelis, that they feel the security situation is
dire.

The occupied West Bank aside, which is a much easier fix for the Israeli
military to manage and is also of increasing concern due to the settler
issue in general, it is clear that the three primary targets for further
war are Iran, Gaza, and Lebanon. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich
also recently commented that the military may have to launch campaigns
against the Gaza Strip and Lebanon prior to next year’s election.
*The ‘Ceasefire’ and the Death of International Law*

With the glorified pause currently in place in the Gaza Strip, which has
resulted in a slower pace in Israeli operations and a lower daily civilian
death toll, the Israeli leadership has been granted a period to design
brand new attack plans and devise various strategies with the intent of
attaining “total victory.”

The “ceasefire” in the Gaza Strip is only a ceasefire for the Palestinian
resistance groups, as the Israelis have not stopped their offensive
operations for a single day, only limiting their pace. Phase One of the
ceasefire has essentially been completed, adding the caveat that the
Israelis do not adhere to it properly.

Following October 8, when the ceasefire deal was announced, I had argued at
the time that what would likely occur was a pause that would get stuck
somewhere between Phase One and Phase Two. During this time, the Israelis
have had the opportunity to repair military vehicles, devise new plots, and
attempt to use the international involvement in the spectacle to achieve
outcomes that proved impossible through their all-out genocidal campaign.

On November 17, 2025, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted
through the most disgraceful resolution in its history, undoing decades of
work by the various organs of the UN and unraveling progress on
international law. UNSC Res 2803 represented the day the United Nations
died.

This vaguely worded resolution eliminated any pledge for Palestinian
statehood, eliminated all past resolutions on the Palestine–Israel issue,
and erased the Geneva Conventions. With the exceptions of Russia and China,
which appeared to be the only independent nations in the UNSC, all of the
other states went along with the colonialist plan for Gaza. This included
the anti-democratic “Palestinian” Authority.

Resolution 2803 authorized Donald Trump to become the de facto dictator of
Gaza, under the Orwellian-named “Board of Peace,” while a multinational
invasion force, the “International Stabilization Force” (ISF), was
authorized to commit a regime-change operation. This was an open reward for
Israel’s genocide and the whole “ceasefire” process has now resulted in US
boots on the ground in southern occupied Palestine, as the American armed
forces construct a military base and run the so-called “Civil-Military
Coordination Center” (CMCC).

Be that as it may, the ISF that the Trump administration envisages being
launched sometime next month appears to be falling apart before it is even
born. There is no way this version of Phase Two can work. Another issue is
that this is the only version of Phase Two that the Israelis will accept.

In other words, expect the so-called ceasefire to drag on until the
Israelis find it untenable and decide that the time has come for them to
accelerate their genocide once again. This could take many months, but it
appears to be the most probable outcome nonetheless.
*War Scenarios: Iran, Lebanon, or Both*

However, collapsing the ceasefire would be dangerous if it were done prior
to completing Israel’s set tasks on the other fronts. Syria could flare up
at any moment, but it is not a significant military threat. It is likely
that some armed groups could root themselves in southern Syria, at least
temporarily, but will not receive the backing of the administration in
Damascus that remains on a knife-edge as it is. An ISIS insurgency in Syria
could additionally be on the cards, providing an opportunity to the
Israelis, more than posing a threat.

So then we have Iran and Hezbollah, the two real threats to Israel. If they
are both fought independently of one another, the Israelis have proven
themselves capable of fighting them to a stalemate. Yet, if both Hezbollah
and Iran are fighting as a unified force in a coordinated effort, the
Israelis could be in for some major trouble. Israel is clearly the
aggressor and is constantly provoking both, but this does not negate the
fact that there is a real threat there.

Understanding this, the Israelis have three options: attack Lebanon first,
attack Iran first, or launch an offensive with US backing against both.

Perhaps the most obvious strategy would be to launch an attack on Lebanon
first. The upside of such a strategy would be to try and weaken Hezbollah
militarily and politically again, with the goal being to take them out of a
future confrontation with Iran, robbing Tehran of a ground force with which
to attack the Israelis.

The downsides of this strategy are numerous. To begin with, the Israelis do
not want to get dragged deep into Lebanese territory and bogged down in a
costly war that could last many months. It would grind down their forces
and leave them vulnerable. All Hezbollah has to do to ensure the war
continues is to ignore calls for a ceasefire and continue firing at a
steady pace toward targets in Haifa and Tel Aviv, which will make it hard
for the Israeli army to withdraw and force them to keep expending soldiers
and resources on the ground.

Israel’s best bet in the event of war on Lebanon is to carry out more
high-profile assassinations, but only one will really make a difference:
the murder of Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem. This would
indeed deal a significant blow to Hezbollah. Yet, if they fail, the absence
of this tactical victory will put Tel Aviv in a tough position. It is clear
that unless they have another pager-style attack up their sleeves, they
cannot achieve much else beyond assassinations and hitting some military
sites; neither will result in the total defeat of their enemies.

Even worse, if they try and fail with their assassination strategy, only to
begin suffering unexpected blows, Hezbollah will quickly revive its image
and place itself in a much stronger position politically in Lebanon. The
only potential contingency that Israel has is to weaponize Salafist
militant groups and use them to cause instability, similar to how they are
currently causing chaos across Syria, even with the president being a
former ISIS and al-Qaeda leader.

To attack Iran first, the idea would be to go after significant figures in
the opening round, perhaps achieving the assassination of Ayatollah Seyyed
Ali Khamenei, then striking critical infrastructure and attempting to use
collaborator proxies to stir civil unrest across the nation. This could, of
course, backfire massively, even triggering groups like Hezbollah and the
Iraqi PMU to get involved.

Attacking both at the same time is a different game altogether. It
guarantees an enormous war, but the potential upside is reaching a quicker
stalemate as the situation deteriorates. If the Israelis can receive US
backing throughout, then perhaps the thinking is to land significant blows
to Iranian infrastructure that will weaken the government in the long run,
while also committing mass-scale destruction across Lebanon.

Under such a scenario, the US role is vital because the Israelis will
require American help to land any serious blows on Iran, especially as
their attacks on Lebanon would involve bombing campaigns comparable to what
was done in Gaza. Israel’s style of warfare has always been to start its
attacks with major blows through assassinations, then adjust the scale of
its bombing according to the responses it receives. There could therefore
be a feeling-out process in such a war.

The potential downsides to this strategy are tremendous. If Iran truly is
seeking to deal much larger blows in any upcoming conflict, Israel may
suffer major hits to its critical infrastructure. Also, within the first
weeks of any conflict with Tehran, air defense munitions will begin running
out. That means that if the war lasts a month, both Iran and Hezbollah will
be able to saturate Israel with drones around the clock that they will not
be able to stop.

Should Ansarallah in Yemen and the PMU in Iraq play support roles, they
will also enjoy much greater success than they previously did with their
own drone and missile attacks. If Hezbollah also decides to go on the
offensive, Israeli ground forces may suffer enormous casualties among their
ranks, the likes of which cannot be covered up.

A best-case scenario for Israel in a war with both Lebanon and Iran is to
make it short, using US leverage to broker a ceasefire within the first few
weeks. If that fails, it is difficult to imagine Israel faring well.
Victory will hinge upon successful assassinations and large hits to
civilian infrastructure, scoring blows designed to do long-term damage.

Realistically, Iran and Hezbollah—assuming they possess the capabilities
and survive the initial blows—will seek to drag the war out for as long as
possible. If they can remain in the fight for months, refusing calls for a
ceasefire, they can dictate the future terms of any agreement after
bringing Israel to its knees. Evidently, this is easier said than done and
such a conflict could go in any direction.

It suffices to say that with Israel seeking these wars, it has truly done
this to itself. The desire is to achieve total victory, meaning weakening
its enemies to the degree that it becomes the undisputed power in West Asia
and is free to pursue its “Greater Israel Project” vision, including broad
Arab normalization deals in the process. Failure could lead to total
downfall.

*(The Palestine Chronicle)*


*– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He
focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this
article to The Palestine Chronicle. *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20251221/c1cd3644/attachment.htm>