The arrival of the U.S. destroyer DELBERT D. BLACK at the port of Eilat does not appear to be merely a routine military visit, despite official assurances that it is a pre-planned activity within the framework of cooperation between the Israeli and U.S. militaries, according to military sources cited by Alhurra.
The destroyer, an Arleigh Burke–class vessel, is equipped with the AEGIS missile detection and defense system and offensive capabilities that include Tomahawk cruise missiles. It reached the Red Sea after being deployed in the Mediterranean and transiting the Suez Canal, joining the U.S. Fifth Fleet under Central Command, according to Israel’s Channel 12.
In terms of timing, it is difficult to separate this military presence from a region increasingly tense over escalation with Iran, and from what Israel describes as one of the most sensitive moments in years. The presence of a naval asset of this size and capability at Israel’s southernmost point cannot be viewed solely through the lens of defensive cooperation, but rather as part of a broader deterrence equation.
In Washington, a senior U.S. State Department official told Alhurra that despite the absence of a clear congressional authorization to launch a military strike on Iran, “all options are on the table,” including adopting a counterterrorism framework to justify such a strike—similar to the legal rationale used in the 2020 operation that targeted former Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani.
In an exclusive analysis for Alhurra, Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Foreign Affairs and Security, said the significance of the destroyer’s arrival cannot be understood in isolation from the depth of coordination between Israel and the United States. In his view, Israel’s decision not to raise its civilian alert level does not reflect complacency but rather indicates the security establishment’s reliance on precise intelligence assessments—chief among them Israel’s superiority in human intelligence related to Iran. This advantage, he said, gives decision-makers greater freedom of action without resorting to overt steps that could be interpreted as direct escalation.
In this context, Diker also pointed to the meeting held last Saturday in Israel between Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and CENTCOM commander Admiral Brad Cooper. The meeting included a lengthy session attended by senior officers.
Diker stressed that U.S.–Israeli cooperation on the Iranian file is built on a deep intelligence partnership that goes beyond the military dimension to encompass an understanding of how the regime in Tehran operates. He told Alhurra that Israel possesses “the most advanced human intelligence system related to Iran—not only in the Middle East, but globally,” adding that this intelligence superiority gives Israel a unique ability to read Iran’s political and security behavior, not merely assess its military capabilities.
He explained that the United States “relies heavily on Israeli assessments and on Israel’s deep understanding of Iran’s political culture and the regime’s way of thinking,” arguing that these factors play a central role in shaping U.S. decision-making toward Tehran, whether in diplomacy or in the military options under consideration.
In the same vein, Diker said that not raising Israel’s civilian alert level does not necessarily signal calm but is the result of precise intelligence evaluations. “Not changing Home Front Command instructions does not mean we are facing de-escalation,” he said. “It indicates that Israel knows what is happening on the other side, is closely monitoring developments, and is capable of responding at the appropriate time.”
He added that the region, in his assessment, is “very close to a point of decision” in confronting an Iranian regime that “poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the Middle East and the entire West.”
At the same time, he pointed to mounting regional pressure—particularly from Gulf states—to avoid a large-scale military strike, warning that these countries fear any open escalation could lead to a “comprehensive regional confrontation with consequences that would be difficult to contain.”
This assessment aligns with comments by Ram Ben-Barak, former deputy head of the Mossad and a member of Israel’s Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, who said that the buildup of U.S. military power at this level cannot end without an outcome—either a genuine agreement under strict conditions, or, if that fails, a shift to a military option.
In his view, the possibility of military action has not receded, even amid regional mediation efforts led by Gulf states and Turkey. Those efforts, he said, remain contingent on substantive Iranian acceptance of conditions that include halting progress toward nuclear capability, removing enriched materials, imposing oversight on missiles, and ending support for armed groups in the region.
At the same time, a clear deterrent message has been sent: any attack on Israel will be met with a strong and decisive response. This further complicates regional calculations, particularly for countries that fear becoming a battleground or transit route for any potential confrontation.
In a related development, Israel has not limited itself to indirect diplomatic and military messaging. On Friday, the Israeli military announced the completion of a large-scale command exercise known as “Sha’at HaAri,” simulating the evolution of a complex battle within the Central Command area—from the divisional level up to the General Staff.
The picture is clear, and all possibilities remain open in confronting Iran: a U.S. destroyer docked in Eilat, high-level military meetings, Israeli exercises simulating worst-case scenarios, and security analyses that rule out no option.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
