Israel’s public broadcaster reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has enlisted Russian President Vladimir Putin to convey calming messages to Iran, signaling that Israel does not intend, at this time, to attack. According to the channel, citing diplomatic sources, these messages were sent recently, including through direct phone calls between Netanyahu and Putin. The initiative comes against a backdrop of rising tensions between Israel and Iran.
The report said the move stemmed from Israeli concern over a potential Iranian miscalculation that could prompt Tehran to launch a preemptive strike, based on the belief that Israel is preparing to attack first. This scenario, according to the broadcaster, has been discussed in recent weeks within Israel’s political and security decision-making circles, as political and military signals were exchanged by the two sides.
This is not the first time Israel has turned to Moscow. Last October, Putin said publicly that he had been asked to relay a message to Iran affirming that Israel was not seeking escalation, according to Russia’s Tass news agency.
Israeli assessments view this indirect channel as an attempt to manage tensions and prevent them from escalating into confrontation due to misreading intentions, particularly given the heightened public rhetoric and increased military activity in the region.
At the same time, Netanyahu has sought to balance these undisclosed de-escalation efforts with clear deterrent messaging from the Knesset podium. “If we are attacked, the consequences for Iran will be very severe,” he said.
He added that his position, and that of U.S. President Donald Trump, toward Iran is “firm,” stressing that Tehran “will not be allowed to rebuild its ballistic missile industry and certainly will not be allowed to renew its nuclear program.”
Netanyahu outlined what he described as the fixed principles of this stance, saying Israel and the United States agree on “zero enrichment capability, the removal of all enriched uranium from Iran, and the imposition of strict and continuous oversight of nuclear program facilities.” He said these messages were conveyed to Iran “before and during” his recent visit to the United States, pointing to ongoing political and security coordination between the two allies.
From the opposition, Benny Gantz offered a more hardline reading of the current situation. Speaking in the Knesset, he said that more than six months after the military operation against Iran, there has been no agreement that “actually distances it from the nuclear threshold,” calling on Israel to prepare for the possibility of carrying out another strike “in the near future.” He added that “this is the time to mobilize the United States and support the Iranian people in confronting the ayatollahs’ regime.”
Alongside the political rhetoric, Israel has closely monitored an Iranian military exercise conducted in recent days. The drills included, according to Israel’s Channel 12 citing security sources, the launch of ballistic missiles and the activation of air defense systems in several areas inside Iran. Israeli media coverage emphasized that the drills came at a sensitive moment and amid escalating regional tensions and as such they were particularly significant beyond routine maneuvers.
Channel 12 added, citing its sources, that the drills were construed by the Israeli military as a deterrent message directed outward—primarily at Israel—while also serving as a display of military readiness. The sources said the Israeli military does not currently see indications of immediate Iranian preparations to engage in a direct confrontation but views these activities as a factor that could increase the risk of miscalculation, particularly if coupled with further verbal escalation or additional moves on the ground.
According to Israeli military assessments, the combination of missile drills, air defense systems, and hardline political messaging necessitates a higher level of alertness, out of concern that any step—whether defensive or demonstrative—could be misinterpreted as preparation for offensive action. The same sources said the Israeli military continues to prepare for multiple scenarios, while taking care not to take steps that Tehran could interpret as signaling an intent to attack.
The Israeli military spokesperson declined to answer questions from Alhurra regarding any exceptional preparations related to tensions with Iran.
Journalist and analyst Yoni Ben Menachem said that “according to Israeli intelligence sources, the Iranians fear Trump’s threats and do not want to become engaged with Israel and the United States at the same time.”
He said the ballistic missile drills in Iran are intended to deter Israel and the United States, as well as to send a message to the Iranian public that the regime is strong and in control. He argued that Tehran is not currently prepared for a new war, particularly as it has yet to rebuild its air defense capabilities destroyed in the war. “Today, Iran does not have air-defense protection. How can it attack Israel when it lacks the ability to defend itself? This means Israel has air superiority over Iran,” he said.
Regarding Netanyahu’s remarks from the Knesset podium, Ben Menachem added in an interview with Alhurra: “They can be understood at levels of meaning: first, to serve his domestic political objectives, and second, to deter Iran.”
He said Netanyahu may indeed resort to escalation for political purposes, but only when there is an agreed election date, at which point he begins political maneuvering to win elections. “There is no election date today, so this is premature,” he said.
Taken together, these differing positions reflect a complex Israeli approach to managing the crisis: indirect diplomacy via Moscow, a hardline deterrent message from the Knesset, and close military monitoring of Iranian moves that are viewed as a show of strength but also as a risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation.
