On Tuesday in the Oval Office, Donald Trump promised to hit Pickaxe Mountain “very heavily” and claimed Iran could do nothing to stop it. Hours later, before the Senate Appropriations Committee, his war secretary was asked a direct question: can the U.S. military actually destroy what sits under that mountain? Pete Hegseth sidestepped. He cited classified capabilities and pivoted to options and trade-offs.

Two men in the same administration, projecting two entirely different levels of confidence. That gap is not a hidden policy debate. It is simply Trump being Trump. Kings do not explain trade-offs. Subordinates do. Trump projects absolute certainty, just as he reserves the right to change his mind without warning. But above all, he despises losing. If he commits to striking Pickaxe Mountain, he will demand it destroyed at all costs. The question is not whether America has the military capacity to execute the strike alone. It does. The question is about the arithmetic of winning.

When dealing with a target of this magnitude, there are no second attempts. The operation ends in absolute victory or historic humiliation. In a strike with zero margin for error, two militaries hit harder than one. If pulling Israel into the operation increases the odds of total destruction, Trump will not ask for help to share the burden. He will simply order Benjamin Netanyahu to join the assault. That, too, is Trump being Trump.

Treating Israel as a subordinate waiting for Washington’s permission is a fatal misreading of the Middle East. In a region where bloodshed for territory and existence is a millennial reality, projecting subservience is projecting weakness, and weakness invites death. The Hebrews, as a nation and a culture, have played this exact survival game for........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)