Hakabi threatens Iran and accuses it of not understanding the message

Washington – Saeed Arikat –

The statements by the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Hakabi, regarding Iran's failure to "fully understand the message" following the recent US airstrikes, reflect a clear state of confusion in assessing the results of the short military confrontation, while also revealing the escalation of Israeli pressures to push Washington towards a new round of confrontation with Tehran, despite the absence of decisive indicators of a change in its strategic behavior.

Hakabi, who was speaking in an interview with Israel's National Security Studies Institute, implicitly acknowledged that the strikes targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, including the heavily fortified Fordow facility, did not produce the political or deterrent impact that Washington and Tel Aviv had hoped for. The hint that Iran continues to rebuild and deepen the fortification of its sites means that the logic of the "deterrent strike" has not succeeded in imposing a long-term deterrence equation.

The most dangerous aspect of Hakabi's statements is not the doubt about Iran's level of understanding of the message, but the indirect link between that and the possibility of US support for an additional Israeli attack. This link reflects a troubled reality that Israel is experiencing after the Twelve Days War, where Iranian ballistic missiles proved their ability to penetrate Israeli depth, breaking one of the most important assumptions of Israeli security superiority.

According to American media reports, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is preparing to pressure President Donald Trump to obtain political and military support for a new strike, under the pretext that the Iranian threat is no longer just nuclear, but has become primarily missile-based. This shift in Israeli discourse reveals the failure of the previous approach that focused exclusively on the nuclear program, ignoring the development of Iran's conventional deterrence systems.

However, Hakabi, despite his tough tone, appeared cautious in defining a clear American position, contenting himself with affirming that the decision is "political" and is made in the White House. This reservation reflects American awareness that getting dragged behind Israeli calculations could open the door to a broad regional confrontation, whose paths or costs cannot be controlled.

Since the ceasefire, President Trump has intensified his public threats against Iran, vowing new strikes if uranium enrichment resumes, even going so far as to threaten the destruction of Iran's missile capabilities. However, these statements, despite their media strength, clash with the reality that Iran has not retreated from its strategic constants, but has redefined its losses as temporary and containable.

In contrast, Tehran insists that its nuclear program is a sovereign right that cannot be relinquished, and treats the issue of enrichment as part of national dignity. As for the ballistic missile program, Iran sees it as the last line of defense against Israel and the United States, and refuses to include it in any future negotiation agreement, which complicates any possible diplomatic path.

Hakabi's statements reveal a growing gap between American rhetoric and the reality of deterrence on the ground. The admission of not "understanding the message" means that the military strikes have not translated into behavioral change, but may have strengthened Iran's conviction of the need to deepen fortifications and expand defensive capabilities, instead of submitting to pressure.

The ongoing Israeli pressure to wage a new war reflects a crisis of confidence within the Israeli security establishment in its ability to contain the Iranian threat without direct American intervention. This puts Washington before a difficult equation: either support its ally, or avoid getting involved in an open regional attrition war.

The recent experience also shows that the logic of force alone is not sufficient to impose permanent settlements with Iran. Every escalation round reproduces the same conditions, with higher costs and fewer control limits. Without a comprehensive political path, "military messages" will remain susceptible to misunderstanding or deliberate disregard.