Aside from some remarks in support of Iran’s anti-government protests  this month, Israel’s prime minister has had little to say publicly about his superpower ally confronting his biggest enemy. His government has remained equally quiet.

“It shows you the importance Netanyahu places on this moment,” said Danny Citrinowicz, who served for 25 years in Israel’s Defence Intelligence and is now a senior Iran researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. “For Netanyahu, being in a position where the US has so many forces in the Gulf, and is so close to Trump attacking Iran, this is — for him — a golden moment in time that he cannot forgo.”

Asaf Cohen, a former deputy director of Israel’s signals intelligence unit, says there is strategy behind Israel’s silence as well. “The [Israeli] leadership believes we should allow the Americans to lead the way this time, because they are stronger, have more capabilities, and enjoy far greater legitimacy in the world.”

Benjamin Netanyahu has long viewed Iran as the key threat facing Israel and the greatest source of instability in the Middle East. His public silence does not signal a lack of private discussion with his key US ally. This week, Israel’s military intelligence chief, Shlomi Binder, met with US intelligence officials in Washington. According to Israeli media, the discussions focused on possible targets in Iran.

Citrinowicz believes Netanyahu is privately urging the US to pursue maximalist strikes aimed at regime change in Iran, and that when Netanyahu reportedly encouraged Trump to hold back  this month, it was because he considered the planned US attack “too small”. Netanyahu has previously urged Iranians to “stand up” to their regime, in an interview with Fox News last year.

US President Donald Trump is currently considering a range of actions against Iran, reportedly including both limited symbolic strikes and full-scale regime change. In public, he has alternated between military threats and offers of renewed negotiations.

While many US allies warn that attempts to unseat Iran’s leadership carry enormous risks for the region, many in Israel see potential benefits for their security. By changing the regime in Tehran, Israel would hope to eliminate the threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missiles and the possibility that it could one day acquire nuclear weapons.

Such a move would also further weaken Iran’s proxy militias across the region, including Hezbollah, which, according to Israel’s Alma Research Institute, still has up to 25,000 missiles and rockets stationed across the border in Lebanon. By contrast, some Israeli lawmakers argue that a limited strike — or even a new deal with Iran — could pose greater risks to Israel’s security by leaving the regime intact. “When you deal with total evil, you don’t act in a limited way,” said Moshe Tur-Paz, a member of the Yesh Atid opposition party who sits on the Defence Committee of Israel’s parliament.

“There’s a consensus that Israel should act much more forcefully, and so should the Western world. When it comes to our worst enemies, like Iran, there are no major differences. We all understand the threat.”

Many argue that another round of conflict that leaves the regime intact would not be worth the price paid through Iran’s retaliation. During the 12-day war last year, when Israel and the US attacked Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile sites, Iran fired hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israeli towns and cities. Some evaded Israel’s vaunted air defences, slamming into apartment blocks in Tel Aviv and killing at least 28 people. (BBC)