Amid ongoing Israeli airstrikes and Iranian missile launches on Tuesday and estimations by Jerusalem that its campaign would end soon, debate intensified over whether the United States would enter the conflict in the 90th hour, with experts divided on how far Washington may go. 

Backchannel efforts suggest the regime in Iran is seeking off-ramps, with the Wall Street Journal on Monday reporting that Iranian diplomats had “signaled” through Arab intermediaries their willingness to return to negotiations.

But US President Donald Trump has publicly dismissed the prospect of a negotiated ceasefire.

“We’re not looking for a ceasefire,” he said, but rather for a “real end” to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. After two months of stalled negotiations, he added, “I’m not in the mood to negotiate.”

Trump later posted a message on social media that read “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” without elaborating, further fueling speculation that the US may take military action against Iran or at least not stop Israel from fully completing its campaign.

Military officials said Tuesday that Israel expects its current campaign targeting Iran’s nuclear program to meet its primary objectives “within one to two weeks.” Its aim — to eliminate what Israel views as the core threat posed by both Tehran’s nuclear weapons efforts and its long-range missile capabilities — would be fulfilled by then, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) brass said.  

Since the start of the operation, Israeli strikes have hit multiple elements of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. According to the officials, the attacks have caused extensive damage at two major enrichment sites — Natanz and Isfahan — and eliminated at least nine senior nuclear scientists involved in bomb development. Additional strikes have targeted facilities supporting the program, including command nodes and administrative offices tied to Iran’s nuclear operations. Israeli strikes have also taken out 40 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile launchers and destroyed 70 Iranian air defense batteries since the start of the campaign on Thursday night.

One potential target that Israel has so far not hit is Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. However, Trump noted on social media on Tuesday that could change.

Jonathan Ruhe, director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, said Trump’s recent military posturing might be designed to strengthen US leverage rather than signal imminent intervention.

“Trump has shown an inclination to always want to play peacemaker, staying above the fray and bringing both sides together when he believes US available leverage is at a maximum,” Ruhe told The Algemeiner.

Ruhe added that Trump’s increasingly explicit threats to join the war was “one more way to try to build US leverage against Iran.”

Eyal Hulata, Israel’s former national security adviser, voiced skepticism about American involvement. “I’d be very surprised if the Americans join the war themselves,” he said on call with reporters on Tuesday. “Israel is proving that it’s pretty much capable of handling the situation so far.”

Hulata noted, however, that US calculations could shift if Iran followed through on threats to strike American personnel or energy infrastructure in Gulf states like Saudi Arabia or the UAE. “That will change the American calculus,” he said.

While Israel continued its strikes in its so-called Operation Rising Lion, reports surfaced that senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leaders were abandoning their posts. The IRGC, an Iranian military force and internationally designated terrorist organization, also reportedly controls a substantial portion of Iran’s oil industry and broader economy.

Ruhe cautioned that the collapse of the Islamic Republic, if it came, would not follow a linear trajectory. “Regime collapse is always gradual until it’s sudden,” he said. “One key factor determining whether regimes disintegrate or survive is not whether the people take to the streets and protest and conduct subversion — which we’re already seeing initial indications of — but whether the security services decide to fire on them and try to put them down or whether they drop their guns and melt into the crowds, disobey orders, or simply flee. That second factor is now very much in play.”

While the heavy losses suffered by the Revolutionary Guards, particularly among senior commanders, could spark defections or widespread disorder that might prevent the regime from suppressing uprisings, Ruhe cautioned that Iran’s internal security apparatus remained significantly more “robust, pervasive, and capable” than the non-state actors Israel has confronted over the past two years, like Hamas and Hezbollah.

“It’s also very possible, amid all this chaos, that the regime doesn’t so much disintegrate as fracture and we see an abrupt turnover in leadership in which the clerics, including supreme leader [Ali] Khamenei, give way to a more militarized government of IRGC diehards willing to fight on no matter the cost.”

Divisions remain within the US intelligence community over how close Iran actually was to a bomb. A CNN report published Tuesday, citing American intelligence, estimated that Tehran was “up to three years away” from building a nuclear weapon.

However, a White House assessment released Tuesday to counter the CNN report cited CENTCOM Commander Gen. Erik Kurilla as saying that Iran was “mere steps” from weapons-grade uranium enrichment. Iran had amassed 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent of weapons grade — double its stockpile from six months earlier. According to the White House, if Tehran accelerated enrichment, it could produce one bomb within a week and as many as ten within three weeks.

A recent analysis by the Institute for Science and International Security found that if Iran chooses to “break out” toward a bomb, it would have enough highly enriched uranium at two of its main facilities, Fordow and Natanz, “for 11 nuclear weapons in the first month, enough for 15 nuclear weapons by the end of the second month, 19 by the end of the third month, 21 by the end of the fourth month, and 22 by the end of the fifth month.”

Ruhe noted that even before reaching full weapons-grade enrichment, Iran had accumulated enough material to assemble a crude device that could be used for a test with its existing stockpiles of 60 percent enriched uranium.

This sense of urgency was sharpened by increasing calls from Iran’s security establishment, including advisors to the supreme leader, to “simply finish the bomb very quickly,” Ruhe said. Ruhe also pointed to the risks of misjudging Iran’s timeline. Israel had long assumed Iran would complete enrichment first and only then move to weaponization over the course of months or years. But Tehran increasingly pursued both tracks in parallel, and, as Ruhe noted, one lesson from past breakouts is that there may never be a “clear and detectable ‘go’ order from the top leadership to finish the bomb.”

“Israel’s increasing sense of urgency to strike after the horrors of Oct. 7 reflects its new security calculus where there is no margin of error to assume they could detect the last turn of the screwdriver on a bomb with enough time to act and to stop it,” he continued.

This was also a key reason behind Israel’s decision to strike Iran’s scientific brain trust in addition to its known nuclear facilities.

For his part, Hulata highlighted the asymmetric warfare Israel wages with its adversaries and the difference between Israel’s precision targeting and Iran’s indiscriminate missile barrages against civilians. “When it’s Hamas, then people say well it’s a terror organization so what do you expect, but Iran is a serious country,” he said. Even so, he continued, “the damage to Israel in this conflict so far is way below what we all would have expected.”

The post IDF Says Iran Strikes May Wrap in ‘One or Two Weeks’ as Speculation Swirls Over US Role first appeared on Algemeiner.com.