Since June 2025, Iran has endured significant pressures on multiple fronts, including its leadership, military industries, security forces, and economy, yet its government remains intact and continues to control the country. Despite ongoing efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program, progress has been slow and faces numerous challenges. The missile threat, once a primary concern for Israel at the onset of the latest military campaign on February 28, has currently receded from public discourse.

In mid-June, the United States and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding, setting a timetable to reach a detailed agreement within 60 days. Discussions are ongoing for an additional 60-day extension to continue negotiations, although the likelihood of a successful deal remains uncertain. Analysts note that stable deadlines are rare in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated threats of military action against Iran have lost much of their impact. Last weekend, Trump called off a planned attack, citing Iran’s willingness to negotiate, though he has not ruled out future military options. Observers suggest Trump’s hesitancy stems from doubts about the strategic benefits of a limited strike and concerns over the long-term consequences.

Within the American political discourse, reports have surfaced describing Trump as preoccupied with legacy-building efforts and exhibiting signs of diminished cognitive capacity, factors that some analysts link to the challenges in managing the protracted crisis with Iran. This perception has arguably emboldened Iranian provocations, driven by a belief that the U.S. shows signs of weakness.

Israel remains a secondary actor amid these developments. The suspension of the U.S. strike plan reportedly followed pressure from Sunni Gulf states, particularly a direct appeal from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Despite recent meetings between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump, concrete results favorable to Israel are yet to materialize, contributing to growing concerns about Israel’s regional strategy following the October 7 attacks.

Critics within Israel, including former politician and researcher Ofer Shelah, have voiced skepticism regarding Netanyahu’s security concept, which involves proactive confrontations and establishing security zones along multiple borders—southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights, Hermon, and much of the Gaza Strip. Shelah warns that this approach risks overextending Israel’s military capabilities, undermining its economy, social cohesion, and the foundational model of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

Brig. Gen. (res.) Assaf Orion adds that the aftermath of the October 7 massacre has profoundly affected the IDF’s operational conduct, leading to intensive military actions in Lebanon and Gaza characterized by widespread destruction. He suggests that both the military and Israeli society are experiencing a form of trauma and exhaustion, as the IDF transitions from expecting short conflicts to enduring an indefinite, taxing struggle.

Domestically, tensions escalated this week between Defense Minister Israel Katz and the IDF’s Central Command in the West Bank. The disagreement centered on handling a settler suspected of carrying out attacks against Palestinians. Katz publicly announced the dismissal of Maj. Gen. Avi Bluth, head of Central Command, for allegedly opposing the release of the settler under restrictive conditions, contradicting Katz’s position. Katz later confirmed that Maj. Gen. Dado Bar Kalifa, seen as part of a “victory generation” of officers, would replace Bluth.

This dispute reflects broader struggles over military appointments and influence. Settler factions seek commanders strictly aligned with their interests, while Katz appears intent on asserting control over senior IDF promotions, particularly as he faces political challenges within the Likud party. The unfolding power dynamics have led to uncertainty within the military hierarchy regarding the emerging norms governing these decisions.