Israel Transferred Ready Target Lists to Americans, Awaiting 'Green Light' to Strike Nearly 76 Iranian Sites

The question of an Israeli-American military confrontation with Iran is no longer about “whether” it will happen, but rather “when” and “how,” in the view of Israeli security circles. The US midterm congressional elections served as a temporary political safety valve; once the polls closed, Trump’s electoral calculations removed one of the main constraints. Yet on the same day, specifically in the early hours of Tuesday, the United States launched a strike on Iran’s Qeshm Island, overlooking the Strait of Hormuz, which Washington described as “self-defense” rather than “escalation.”

Analysts in Tel Aviv and Washington differ on whether this “window of opportunity” will translate into a broad military strike or become a pressure card in the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to save his political career. However, most agree that Israel cannot determine the duration or end of the war, Iran has reasons to delay, Washington currently lacks a clear military solution to this contradiction, and its economic situation is difficult.

Major Israeli media outlets (Maariv, Haaretz, Israel Hayom) have published similar analyses stating that the security establishment has raised the alert level to its highest, and that the US-backed air force has prepared target lists, which it has transmitted to Washington, awaiting political approval to strike approximately 76 sites linked to Iran’s nuclear program.

It is noted that “the northern front is equally worrying: in a war between Israel and Iran, Hezbollah would play an active role, attempting to launch fire deep into Israel and the north. The Israeli military is evacuating combat forces from the West Bank to prepare for a jump to the north, and the 7th Armored Brigade is recovering and training in the Golan Heights. In the event of war, direct pressure is expected on the Lebanese government and its population, with the Navy responsible for destroying most buildings in the suburbs or imposing a naval blockade on Lebanon.”

Military analyst Amos Harel (Haaretz) wrote an article titled “Between the Attack on Iran and Negotiations,” revealing that the conflict between Netanyahu and Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir was not only about timing, but also about substance. Netanyahu wanted to launch an attack before the Israeli elections, while both Trump and Zamir opposed it.

Zamir’s fear was that another war would lead to casualties on the home front, thereby changing the political course and giving Netanyahu an excuse to avoid forming a government with the “Change” bloc supported by Arab parties—a scenario reminiscent of May 2021, when Naftali Bennett withdrew from efforts to form a similar government following the “Guardian of the Walls” operation.

Harel lists the General Staff’s reservations: First, Israel and the US have different objectives for an attack on Iran... As Netanyahu explicitly stated, Israel seeks to topple the regime in Tehran, while Washington is content with the desire to craft a better agreement that limits the nuclear program and lifts the Iranian blockade on the Strait of Hormuz.

Second, it is unclear what will be done this time that was not done previously.

Retired Colonel Or Hershko (Israel Hayom), in his article “Security Challenges Do Not Wait for Political Fights,” goes further, stating that the new Israeli government must establish a strategy “to topple the Iranian regime” over the next two years, amid Iran’s unprecedented economic crisis and escalating tensions within its leadership.

He considers this a “historical opportunity—even if not guaranteed” that exists for us for about two years, until Trump is replaced in the White House, as it is not at all clear what will come after that.

Danny Seiterovitch, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and an expert on Iranian affairs, stated that the third round of the war against Iran “could be the most destructive.” He explicitly warned that “the real danger is that Netanyahu will merge his political considerations with operational developments in Iran – he may not fabricate them entirely, but he will inflate them – and this combination will lead to an unnecessary attack on Iran.”

Early Tuesday morning, on the same day that U.S. polling stations opened, the United States launched a strike targeting Iran’s Qeshm Island, which overlooks the Strait of Hormuz. Axios reported that a U.S. official said the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired a missile from Qeshm Island at a U.S. fighter jet in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday evening. The fighter jet responded by destroying a surface-to-air missile launch platform “in self-defense.”

A Fox News source confirmed that the strike was “defensive” and came in response to an Iranian initiative to fire first, emphasizing that it “does not mean a return to U.S. military strikes against Iran, nor does it signal the beginning of an escalation.”

The Obstacle: Warnings that Iran may not cease missile launches even after the U.S. bombing stops.

U.S. intelligence assessments indicate that previous strikes have not actually altered Iran’s nuclear capabilities timeline, and large quantities of 60% enriched uranium remain unaccounted for.

Scenario Three: A Temporary Settlement. Qatari mediation succeeds in pushing through a deal that opens the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for easing the siege. Trump declares “victory,” but Israel views this as “a truce that gives Iran time to regroup.”

Amos Harel also clearly pointed out the fundamental trap: “Israel may find itself forced to pay the price of war, or compelled to accept an agreement that does not meet its demands.”

In short: “The 76 targets in Tehran are ready on paper, but the question that governs everything remains: Does Washington – not Tel Aviv – want to translate this list into reality, or was the Qeshm strike precisely the message saying ‘not now’?”