Which News Narrative Is Correct?!
WANA (Jan 06) – Confusing and ambiguous reports are coming out of Israel about the possibility of a new war with Iran. One narrative, for certain reasons, raises the possibility of an Iranian attack, while another speaks of Israel preparing to strike. Meanwhile, both supporters and opponents of Netanyahu are beating the drums of yet another war.
A third narrative is that Israel’s Kan network, citing diplomatic sources, reported that Netanyahu sent a “reassuring” message to Iran via Putin, saying that Tel Aviv is not seeking to start another war. However, the network did not clarify whether it was referring to an earlier message or a newly sent one.
It is now possible that the first and third narratives are linked. These three analytical news lines are being discussed in Israel at a time when threats by Netanyahu and Trump against Iran have recently intensified.
Most recently, the Israeli prime minister told the Knesset that Tel Aviv would not allow Iran to rebuild its ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
At the same time, he stressed that if the Islamic Republic attacks Israel, it will face “severe consequences.” On the surface, this warning by Netanyahu appears to reinforce the possibility of a preemptive Iranian strike.
Some media outlets have also quoted Netanyahu as saying that an important decision to attack Iran has been made; however, it seems this statement was not accurately translated, and that he was actually referring to the decision related to the 12-day war.
Meanwhile, in recent days some unofficial reports have pointed to Iranian military exercises and missile tests, but relevant media outlets and institutions have remained silent and have neither confirmed nor denied them.
Now, amid these contradictions and disparate narratives, what exactly is Israel’s main line? Is it preparing for another attack on Iran and has it received a green light from Trump? Is the message sent via Putin merely a deception? Fundamentally, if there is no intention to attack, why send such a message at all? Is Israel worried that Iran might view an Israeli attack as inevitable and therefore act preemptively, and thus is trying to prevent that by sending such a message?
People walk next to an anti-US mural on a street as protests erupt over the collapse of the currency’s value in Tehran, Iran, January 2, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency)
Of course, even if such a concern exists, it does not necessarily mean that Israel has completely set aside the war option. Rather, it may be that Israel wants to keep the initiative for starting a war—given its importance from multiple perspectives—in its own hands, instead of being attacked first and then responding.
Another question is whether the narrative about the possibility of a preemptive Iranian attack is based on intelligence and field assessments, or whether it is intended to justify a potential Israeli strike as an effort to fend off a preemptive attack.
Another possibility is that, given Trump’s recent threats of military intervention in Iran, Iranian military forces may have undertaken movements to prepare for a possible confrontation, prompting Israel to consider a preemptive strike as a realistic scenario. Another factor could be that, if Iran’s internal situation were to enter a particular phase, an attack on Israel might occur.
But in short:
The likelihood of another war against Iran remains high, and the key issue is timing. Both Israel and the United States know better than anyone that Iran will not abandon either its missile or nuclear programs. In fact, in recent weeks some U.S. media sources have reported around-the-clock efforts by the IRGC Aerospace Force to produce ballistic missiles.
On the surface, the U.S. and Israel are watching the fate of the current protests. However, despite some declared positions, it is unlikely that they view these protests—at their current level—as an existential, regime-toppling threat to the Islamic Republic.
Therefore, if in the coming days and weeks the protests fail to reach the level they expect to achieve their desired objectives and begin to fade, it would not be unlikely for them to plan attacks against security, police, and related targets to prevent that outcome.
In any case, in a situation where the possibility of another war is being discussed, its form could be highly surprising. Perhaps the central question is no longer whether war will happen, but rather what kind of surprising method or tactic would be used if it does.
The United States employed such an approach in Venezuela. While everyone expected an attack, no one imagined it would take that form—when, in a highly surprising special operation, they attempted to abduct Nicolás Maduro in the capital.
In the 12-day war with Iran as well, although the outbreak of war had become almost certain and Iranian forces were on full alert, Israel used a surprising tactic and method and, aside from deploying operational teams in the following days, assassinated several senior commanders in the very first moments of the conflict.
Protests in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar
WANA (Jan 06) – Reports from central Tehran indicate that protests took place in the Tehran Grand Bazaar area, primarily focused on high prices and market instability, with political slogans largely absent. Due to the presence of pedestrians and crowded conditions, it was not possible to separate protesters from bystanders to estimate the exact […]
