For weeks, Israel’s closest ally has been openly threatening to strike its arch-nemesis, yet Jerusalem has been notably quiet.

No stranger to verbal and military confrontation with the Iranian regime, in recent weeks Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stood off to the side while US President Donald Trump repeatedly issued bellicose warnings to the Islamic Republic that it could face military strikes in response to its deadly attempts to suppress widespread protests in Tehran and beyond.

Iran’s response that it would attack Israel and American military assets in retaliation for US action was met with veritable crickets from Jerusalem, rather than the bombastic saber-rattling that would normally follow such threats.

From the get-go, Netanyahu reportedly instructed cabinet ministers to maintain radio silence on Iran when protests triggered by worsening economic woes in the country of over 90 million broke out late last month.

The premier has himself remained relatively taciturn, releasing only a brief statement encouraging the downfall of the regime and offering strength to the Iranian people.

He was even said to have asked Trump last week to delay potential plans for a strike on Iran, apparently to buy Israel time to prepare for any possible retaliation.

This restraint isn’t for lack of desire to see the collapse of a regime that has long been sworn to Israel’s destruction. Instead, it’s likely a calculated approach taken to avoid disrupting a process of regime change that may be driven internally without the need for intervention — or through American, rather than Israeli, initiative.

“[Israel’s] thinking is that our ability to help is limited, and the cost is high, because any visible involvement would give the Iranians an excuse to intensify repression,” said Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies and former head of Iran research in an Israeli military intelligence branch.

In stark contrast to the approach by Trump — who anyway has seemingly backed off his threats in recent days — Jerusalem has apparently concluded that little good can come of it intervening publicly. Doing so would only confirm the regime’s claims that the protesters are Zionist agents, a charge that could shift popular anger onto the demonstrators and douse the movement.

A US strike carries a similar risk of allowing the regime to rally support by focusing the public’s rage on an outside agitator rather than its own leaders, though it’s unclear if this calculation is behind Trump’s recent vacillations. Regardless, if Trump does choose to strike, Israel would prefer that the US — with its greater offensive and defensive capabilities — carry out the attack and take responsibility for the aftermath.

For now, Tehran appears to have successfully quelled the uprising by killing thousands of its own citizens in a bloody campaign of violent suppression. But the issues behind the........

© The Times of Israel