Israel’s Ambassador Discusses Iran Military Operations and Regional Strategy
Unprecedented U.S.-Israel Military Collaboration
In a revealing interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Dr. Michael Leiter, provided insight into the deepening military partnership between the two nations and their shared strategy regarding Iran. Ambassador Leiter emphasized that the collaboration between Israel and the United States has reached unprecedented levels, with President Trump and the Israeli Prime Minister reportedly speaking daily about the ongoing operations. This close coordination, which began months before the launch of operations codenamed “Rising Lion” and “Midnight Hammer” in June, reflects what Leiter described as a level of cooperation “never seen between our two countries and between our two militaries.” When pressed about whether this partnership would endure despite potential economic pressures on Americans, particularly rising gas prices, the ambassador remained confident that the alliance would hold strong throughout the duration of the conflict, stating that such a critical operation “doesn’t depend really on a timeline” and emphasizing that the mission must be completed regardless of how long it takes.
Signs of Iranian Regime Collapse
Ambassador Leiter painted a picture of an Iranian regime showing significant signs of internal fracture and imminent collapse. According to the ambassador, Israeli and American intelligence are observing what he called “cracks in the edifice of this military security terror regime,” including severe difficulties in the chain of command and internal disputes over succession following recent strikes that killed Iran’s supreme leader. Leiter pointed to Iran’s increasingly erratic behavior—firing ballistic missiles at approximately twelve neighboring countries and even into Europe—as evidence of the regime’s desperation and deteriorating control. The ambassador suggested that these actions indicate “huge problems” within the Iranian military and governmental structure. When asked about the timeline for ending the conflict, Leiter agreed with the U.S. Secretary’s assessment that the operation would be measured in weeks rather than months, though he was careful to emphasize that success metrics would not be determined by watching the clock but by achieving strategic objectives, particularly preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
The Nuclear Material Security Challenge
One of the most pressing concerns discussed during the interview was the question of how to secure Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, a critical objective to prevent nuclear materials from falling into dangerous hands amid the chaos of potential regime collapse. When Margaret Brennan asked directly about President Trump’s refusal to rule out sending American troops to secure Iran’s nuclear materials, Ambassador Leiter confirmed that securing this enriched uranium is absolutely part of Israel’s plan, though he declined to provide operational details about how this would be accomplished. He emphasized that the primary goal of the entire operation is “to prevent a terror state from achieving nuclear weapons,” making the security of existing nuclear materials a top priority. However, Leiter acknowledged that before any forces could safely access and remove the enriched material, there would need to be a reduction in “kinetic activity on the ground”—a diplomatic way of saying the fighting would need to subside first. This creates a challenging timeline dilemma: the materials need to be secured quickly to prevent their seizure by extremist elements, yet the ongoing combat makes such an operation extremely dangerous.
Iranian People as the Preferred Ground Force
Perhaps the most striking element of Ambassador Leiter’s strategy was his emphasis on empowering the Iranian people themselves rather than deploying Israeli ground forces. When asked directly whether Israel was ruling out putting boots on the ground, Leiter expressed a clear preference for what he called Iranian boots on the ground—not the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or the regular military, but the Iranian civilian population itself. The ambassador cited statistics suggesting that 80% of Iranians oppose their current regime and are eager for freedom, describing an entire generation that “knows there is such a thing as freedom but has never tasted it yet.” Leiter referenced historical precedents like Romania, where the people turned against dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu, suggesting a similar popular uprising could occur in Iran. He revealed that Israel has been in contact with various minority groups within Iran—including Kurds, Balochs, and Azeris—for many years, though he emphasized the goal was not to support any single minority group but to help all opposition elements “coalesce” and “unify” against the regime. The Prime Minister’s recent address to IRGC members, promising safety to those who lay down their arms while warning others that “their blood is on their own heads,” was designed to encourage defections and reduce the regime’s military capacity to suppress popular resistance.
Regional Complications and Turkey’s Concerns
The interview also touched on significant regional complications, particularly Turkey’s concerns about Kurdish involvement in the conflict. President Trump had stated he did not want Kurds from neighboring countries entering the Iranian conflict, seeking to prevent the war from becoming more complex than it already is. Turkey’s foreign minister had suggested that Israel’s intentions regarding the Kurds were “not so secret,” implying Israeli support for Kurdish intervention. Ambassador Leiter dismissed these concerns somewhat dismissively, suggesting Turkish President Erdogan’s words shouldn’t be taken too seriously and pointing out that Erdogan himself has spoken of spreading a caliphate throughout the Middle East, including taking over Saudi Arabia and Israel. Despite these tensions, Leiter insisted Israel wants “a united Iran” but believes in empowering all minorities to participate in the political process they’ve been denied for 47 years. This delicate balancing act—encouraging internal resistance movements while avoiding accusations of fragmenting Iran along ethnic lines—represents one of the most challenging diplomatic aspects of the operation, particularly given the complex web of regional interests involving Turkey, Kurdish groups across multiple countries, and the various Arab states watching these developments with both hope and apprehension.
Post-Conflict Transition and Long-Term Vision
The final portion of the interview addressed what happens after the military operations conclude and how Iran might transition to new leadership. Ambassador Leiter acknowledged a controversial aspect of recent Israeli strikes: when they killed Iran’s supreme leader, they also eliminated several individuals described by the New York Times as “pragmatists” whom the White House had hoped might help lead a new Iran. When pressed on whether these individuals were intentionally targeted, Leiter downplayed their potential influence, arguing that pragmatists have had “absolutely no influence” during the 47 years of Iran’s current government, with real power residing in the hands of ayatollahs with “apocalyptic views.” His vision for Iran’s future involves a transitional government bringing together minorities, the majority population, and various opposition parties to lead the country for approximately a year with guidance from the United States, Israel, and regional allies, eventually transitioning to a democratic process where “the people choose.” Leiter was at pains to distinguish this scenario from the prolonged American occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, arguing that because 80% of Iranians already oppose their regime, the situation is fundamentally different from those “forever wars.” The Iranian people, he insisted, are “the most pro-western people after Israel” and simply need the opportunity to express their political will. However, this optimistic scenario faces significant skepticism, as the condensed military timeline of “weeks not months” seems inconsistent with the lengthy, complex political transition being described. The personal stakes of these decisions were evident when Ambassador Leiter mentioned that he lost his son in war, adding emotional weight to his insistence that “none of us in Israel want to see war” but cannot tolerate a regime that threatens their existence daily.
