‘Khamenei’s behavior is in fact very reminiscent of Pharaoh. No matter how many blows he took, it only hardened his heart.’
By Hezy Laing
Brigdier General (res.) Amir Avivi, former deputy commander of the Gaza Division and head of the Bitchonistim ‘Security Defenders’ movement, has analyzed Iran’s behavior in recent weeks.
“Khamenei’s behavior is in fact very reminiscent of Pharaoh. No matter how many blows he took, it only hardened his heart, until the defining moment when his men and horses drowned in the sea. It seems to me that the Iranians are going the same way.”
“After the end of Operation ‘Am Kalavi,’ instead of the Iranians lowering their heads – they did exactly the opposite.”
Avivi says that Iran has chosen a line of unprecedented escalation:
“They’ve started producing ballistic missiles around the clock, restoring the nuclear program and pouring billions more into Hezbollah, the Houthis and the militias in Iraq. They are suffused with revenge and feel humiliated.”
Avivi outlines four sharply different scenarios shaping current strategic planning, each reflecting the widening gap between Washington and Tehran and the growing sense that the region is approaching a decisive moment.
The first scenario, a diplomatic breakthrough, is viewed as the least plausible. He argues that the distance between American and Iranian positions is so vast that meaningful mediation is nearly impossible.
With Iran demanding sanctions relief and regional concessions, and the United States insisting on nuclear and missile restrictions, the chances of diplomacy succeeding remain extremely low.
The second scenario involves a direct Iranian strike on Israel.
This could take the form of missile salvos, drone swarms, or attacks by Iranian‑backed militias.
While Iran has shown willingness to escalate, such a move risks triggering a broader regional conflict. The likelihood exists but is tempered by Iran’s awareness of the potential consequences.
The third scenario is a preemptive Israeli attack, launched even before the United States is fully prepared.
Israel has a long history of acting alone when it perceives an existential threat, and growing concerns about Iran’s nuclear progress make this option increasingly conceivable.
Still, Israel would weigh the diplomatic fallout and operational risks carefully.
The fourth scenario envisions a large‑scale American strike aimed not merely at nuclear facilities but at the pillars of Iranian power: leadership compounds, Revolutionary Guard infrastructure, and strategic command centers.
This would represent a dramatic escalation and is considered possible only if Iran crosses a clear red line. Its probability is uncertain but rises if Iran accelerates its nuclear program or attacks U.S. assets.
