Iran Standoff Scenarios

Jewish Politics & Power is published every other week. Sign up for our newsletter for updates.

---

1. Iran standoff scenarios

It’s been a month since mass protests broke out in Iran, only to be violently suppressed by the regime, leaving thousands of civilians dead, tens of thousands wounded and arrested and a movement waiting for the U.S. president to make good on his promise that “help is on its way.” 

Since then President Trump has changed course. Moving the human rights issue to a back burner, he has been amassing forces in the region and threatening to strike Iran, not as retribution for its aggressive oppression of the protests but rather as a means of driving Tehran into a new deal with the United States.

Israel has been on high alert for the past weeks, watching every step in the American military buildup, tracking every statement coming from Trump and his administration. The prevailing thought in Israel is that if and when Trump gives the order to strike, Iran will retaliate by launching ballistic missiles at Israel.

As of Monday, this tense standoff is far from reaching any resolution; Trump is warning that without a deal on Iran’s nuclear program, America will hit Iran with all its might, and the ayatollahs are responding that they’re willing to talk while also threatening a full-scale regional war.

How does this end?

Here are the possible scenarios to keep in mind as we wait for decision makers in Washington and Tehran to make their moves:

– De-escalation: Under this scenario, Iran and the United States agree to enter into negotiations on a deal that will include ending Iran’s nuclear program, curbing its ballistic missile capabilities and ending support for regional terror groups in return for lifting sanctions and ending the American military threat. Trump would love this outcome—another “peace deal” to add to his portfolio and less grief from his isolationist MAGA base. Iran would prefer this outcome, too, because it ensures the regime’s survival and gives it a chance to heal its economy. Israel would likely hate this outcome, since Jerusalem believes that the path to Israeli security goes through regime change in Iran. Either way, chances of striking such a deal are slim. The agreement that Trump is proposing goes far beyond anything Iran has agreed to in the past.

– All-out war: With no deal, the United States can decide to attack within days or weeks. Options on Trump’s table run the gamut from limited precision strikes on military targets to a broad assault aimed at toppling the regime. For Trump, ending the oppressive Iranian regime would be the crown jewel of his attempts to reshape the world, but it would come with a huge risk of drawing America into an Iraq-style war and of disrupting global energy markets. Iran, based on its early warnings, would fight back, but with no air force, weak air defense systems and depleted missile capabilities, it would end up losing that war. This would be the preferred outcome for Israel, since it could potentially reduce the Iranian ballistic program that threatens Israel and perhaps even end the rule of the ayatollahs and their nuclear ambitions.

– A prolonged waiting period: The fact that everything is ready for a Gulf showdown doesn’t mean it will happen anytime soon. Negotiations can drag on, and as long as neither side makes a wrong move, the standoff can go on for months. If it does, the American appetite for war will naturally decline, as will Iran’s willingness to compromise. Israel will remain on the sidelines, quietly reminding Trump that hitting Iran, even in a limited manner, is worth the price.

2. Does Bibi Netanyahu have any more bridges to burn?

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a rare press conference with Israeli reporters. At the very end, Netanyahu made a completely unprompted comment that shocked many of Israel’s supporters in the United States. “We paid a very heavy price in the war. Part of it is that at a certain point, we simply didn’t have enough ammunition, and people fell, heroes fell. Part of the loss of ammunition was also a result of the embargo.”

The embargo Netanyahu was referring to is a decision by the Biden administration to block a single shipment of heavy bombs to Israel following a disagreement over Israel’s plan to take over the city of Rafah, a plan the United States believed would cause the loss of too many civilian lives. 

The gravity of the allegation—blaming Biden for the death of Israeli soldiers—is unprecedented. While there are different views about the U.S. “embargo”—Netanyahu and his team claim it was significant and touched on many weapons systems, Biden and his senior advisers argued it was small and limited to one shipment—there is no doubt that the Biden administration went to great lengths to support Israel during its time of need. From Biden’s historic visit to Israel just days into the war to a massive $20 billion military aid package and an impenetrable wall of diplomatic immunity for Israel on the world stage, the previous administration did all it could to help Israel, and then some. Biden’s support for Israel cost him the support of many progressive Democrats and Arab Americans and put him at odds with European allies.

The former president, a self-defined Zionist, is sometimes referred to as the last pro-Israel Democratic president. Now Israel has broken with him too.

3. Closer to home

The senseless killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE agents in Minneapolis raised tensions in a city already on the brink of explosion. For the American Jewish community, Minneapolis has served as a reminder and an opportunity to go back to the core liberal values that defined Jewish Americans for decades: support for immigration, free speech and equality for all.

“American Jews cherish our own families’ immigration stories. We recall that, like many being expelled from America today, we or our ancestors came to this country to escape oppression and find opportunity,” read a joint statement by the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements. “We grieve an American promise that seems to be no more.”

On January 23, more than 100 rabbis descended on Minneapolis in a show of support for the city fighting to fend off the surge of ICE agents aiming to deport masses of immigrants. They came to back Minnesotans who went on strike to protest ICE’s actions and to grieve the killing of Renee Good. Little did they know that by the next day, the battle over immigration in Minneapolis would claim the life of another resident—37-year-old Alex Pretti.

As the Jewish community has faced increasing antisemitism and been battered by two years of war that has made one of its core beliefs—support for Israel—an issue so contentious it cannot even be discussed in many settings, it now has an opportunity to put civil rights back at the top of the Jewish agenda.

Evidence of the impulse can be seen from grassroots to leadership.

While organizations representing the Orthodox movement haven’t put out official statements, one Orthodox rabbi, Max Davis, spoke out against ICE. “You can’t watch the video of Alex Pretti, the ICU nurse from the VA hospital, you can’t watch the video of Renee Good in her car and how that unfolded—shootings on streets and in neighborhoods that I know—you can’t watch that and not be highly disturbed and moved,” Davis told The Forward.

Far from there, in Florida, a group of Jewish senior citizens offered to hide their Haitian caregivers who are about to lose their legal status because of the Trump administration decision to end the special protective visa for immigrants from Haiti. “That reminds me of Anne Frank,” Rachel Blumberg, head of the senior living center, told the Jewish Telegraph Agency. It’s a chilling comparison that suddenly sounds appropriate.

The battle over immigration is turning into a defining issue in the upcoming midterm elections. Jewish Americans, once immigrants and now advocates, can play a major role in this battle.

4. Josh Shapiro is getting ready to run

At a time when Democrats are looking for their next leader, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, who was passed over for Kamala Harris’s running mate in 2024, is emerging as a presidential contender for 2028.

The same qualities that made Shapiro a top VP pick make him well-positioned for a run at the ticket next time around: He’s extremely well-spoken, charismatic, moderate in his views, and he comes with the track record of a successful governor in the nation’s ultimate swing state.

And he’s Jewish.

Shapiro, who, along with his family, was targeted in an antisemitic arson attack at his residence last Passover and who has been vilified by the left for his support of Israel and for calling out antisemitism in pro-Palestinian protests, isn’t ignoring his Jewishness, nor is he running (if he indeed decides to run) as “the Jewish candidate.”

In a fascinating review of Shapiro’s recent book, Where We Kept the Light, Gal Beckerman at The Atlantic offers a new reading of Shapiro’s race to the top. He is out to offer the nation what it so desperately needs: faith. The fact that his faith is Jewish doesn’t matter. Shapiro could be the believer America is looking for after a second Trump term.

5. A double agent for Israel?

In his memoir, Shapiro tells the story of the vetting process he underwent when being considered for the Harris ticket. He was asked by the vetting team whether he had ever been “a double agent for Israel” and if he had “ever communicated with an undercover agent of Israel.” To the first question, Shapiro responded that it was offensive, and to the second he said: “If they were undercover, how the hell would I know?”

The questions come across to many as outrageous. 

The vetting interviews, according to Shapiro’s account, focused on his views on Israel, the Gaza war and on anti-Israel protests in the United States. All this makes sense. After all, it is legitimate to dive into the views of a candidate running at a time of great discord over Israel. 

But did the Harris team insinuate in its questions that Shapiro, because of his Jewish faith, is somehow disloyal to the United States?

Raising the dual loyalty issue is purely antisemitic. And dangerous.

But there’s another way of looking at it, offered by Rahm Emanuel, who is also Jewish and who is also mentioned as a potential 2028 candidate. Emanuel noted that the questions posed to Shapiro, who briefly worked at the Israeli embassy in Washington and who volunteered as a teenager in Israel, and to Tim Walz, who had ties with China, were appropriate in their content, even if inappropriate in the way they were presented. “If you don’t ask, given the trips that Walz makes to China and Governor Shapiro’s background, you’ll have not done your job of vetting,” Emanuel said. “So the phrasing of the question was not artful, as told by Tim Walz and Gov. Shapiro. But you have to ask. I mean, I was asked many questions by our security team before I got the security clearance as President Obama’s chief of staff.”

Bottom line: Such questions are legit and if politicians want to hold a top position, they should be prepared to answer them. And here comes the “but.” To ask the only Jewish candidate on the list point blank if he’s an Israeli agent reeks of insensitivity. There must be a better way of doing it.