WINEP and the Path to War: Are US and Israel Planning a Second Strike on Iran?
By Robert Inlakesh
If you read the analyses that are being published by Washington-based think tanks themselves, or their affiliates in the Western corporate media, the messaging is relatively uniform.
While the shaky Iran-Israel ceasefire continues to hold, the same pro-war think tanks that helped shape US policy that led to the illegal attacks on the Islamic Republic are now advocating another series of strikes and policies that will lead to escalation.
Earlier this week, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) hosted a panel entitled “After the Hammer: Postwar Opportunities and Risks for US Policy in the Middle East”. The analyses offered by the pro-Israel think tank panelists were all in agreement on the notion that the conflict with Iran that was just opened has set a precedent for further future action.
Robert Satloff, the Executive Director of WINEP, argued that the US attack on Iran’s nuclear program transformed red lines and opened the way to what he calls a new era of “direct interstate attacks”.
Although he argued that this all began with Iran’s attack on Israel, in its Operation True Promise attack back in April, this is evidently a propagandistic depiction of events, as the Iranian ballistic missile strikes were quite obviously a response to strikes on their embassy in Damascus, Syria.
Yet, Satloff’s points, despite being wrapped in typical Israeli propaganda, still very much stand. Most notably, he asserted that while Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei was not defeated, he will likely be looking to the examples of what happened in Libya, Iraq, and Syria.
He also posited that “in the end, further US military action may be required to convince Tehran that an agreement will safeguard its regime more than a swift breakout toward a nuclear weapon would.”
In the lead up to Israel’s initial surprise attack against the Islamic Republic, it was WINEP that had been pushing the idea of launching strikes, more than the other pro-war think tanks.
The likes of the Atlantic Council and Foundation for the Defence of Democracies (FDD) didn’t necessarily have to spell it out that they were calling for military action, instead advocating that Washington adopt a negotiating stance which would inevitably collapse any nuclear deal talks.
Another Round Of Attack May Be Near
If you read the analyses that are being published by Washington-based think tanks themselves, or their affiliates in the Western corporate media, the messaging is relatively uniform: They begin by claiming that the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities either had high or devastating effect – the hyperbole employed changes depending upon the platform – but then shifts to claim that the Iranian threat has to be curtailed still.
This contradictory narrative can sometimes prove confusing, yet when you are able to rid their shared narrative of its unproven claims and propaganda, the core points are easy to see.
Take, for example, the Heritage Foundation’s 6-page brief, entitled “Eradicating Iran’s Nuclear Program”, published on May 22. It made a large range of claims, including that Iran’s air defence systems had been destroyed in late 2024 by Israel’s extremely limited strikes, but its key takeaway points were obvious, including the idea that the US and Israel should launch military action in a manner that could lead to a short and containable war.
When WINEP begins advocating for a second round of attacks against Iranian nuclear facilities, it should be taken note of. Not only does the think tank have enormous influence in Washington, and many of its senior members have held leading positions at varying levels of the security state, but it represents the view of the powerful Israel Lobby.
In another WINEP panel, organised to discuss the Iran-Israel war, they invited former Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Herzog, who made a range of stunning admissions. Mediating the discussion was none other than former Biden administration official, Dana Stroul, who herself noted that the US-Israeli attacks on Iran would not have been possible without the tightening of military ties in the years running up to it.
Stroul remarked that the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities had been made possible due to “Juniper Oak Exercise” between Israeli and American forces, which occurred “well before October 7”. Herzog, who was still in office at the time, shared that the attack on Iran had already been decided back in November of 2024.
He also stated that Iran “misread Israel totally”. “They failed to understand that post October 7, Israel is a totally different country”.
Although predicting a time and date for when another Israeli-US attack on Iran is not possible, it is now certain that Israel intends to continue. This is also why they have not stopped the son of the deposed Iranian Shah, who is still claiming that the “regime is collapsing” every day, continuing to prove incapable of triggering protests in his favour inside Iran.
The Israeli Mossad is also agitating throughout the country, using their rings of collaborators to pull off quadcopter drone attacks. The clear long-term goal here is regime change, and the language coming from the Israeli leadership continues to indicate further action will be taken as they deem it necessary.
All of this makes sense if we consider that the reason behind the US and Israel attacking Iran has little to do with nuclear weapons. Instead, the goal has always been to topple the Iranian government because it opposes US hegemony and supports the Palestinians.
The pro-Israel think tanks in Washington are all advocating for a negotiating strategy that is even harderline than before; in other words, they want Iran to fully surrender and to follow what Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu calls the “Libya model”.
WINEP is already talking about a second attack against Iran, yet the negotiating tactics that are being employed are also destined to lead to military confrontation.
(The Palestine Chronicle)
– Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specializing in Palestine. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.