A Dodgy Israeli  Intelligence Dossier Fooled The USA Into Conflict With Iran

By Rhod Mackenzie

The US has initiated a search for those who were responsible for them being dragged into the unsuccessful operation against Iran. According to media reports, the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, has been singled out and  criticised  for its failure to accurately predict and prepare for the events in question. However, a more compelling theory suggests that Israeli leadership, with the assistance of Mossad, may have willfully misled their American partners.
According to reports in the American media, including the New York Times, the Israeli plan hoped to provoke mass unrest in Iran and "other forms of resistance" with the aim of overthrowing the government within days of launching its operation against the Islamic Republic.
The Mossad chief, David Barnea, presented the  corresponding plan to the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Following the acceptance of the plan by Netanyahu, it was presented to senior officials in the Donald Trump administration in January 2026.

Both American and Israeli leaders believed that assassinating Iranian leaders early in the conflict and conducting a series of intelligence operations aimed at regime change they ere assured would lead to a mass uprising and a swift conclusion to the war. The NYT emphasises that the Mossad intelligence on which they based their assumptions proved to be a complete bullshit and wishful thing e in preparing for their military campaign. Instead of triggering an internal collapse, the Iranian government strengthened its position and began to retaliate.

Information regarding Israel's systematic influence on the US position, as well as that of Donald Trump personally, has previously come to light. Israel was primarily responsible for preparing the operation and for collecting and analysing key intelligence data.
It was anticipated that the involvement of the Israeli and American militaries in the operation against Iran would be minimal, with the primary objective being to "create conditions" for an "uprising" against the "hated regime of the ayatollahs." Following this, a government loyal to the US and Israel would be established in Tehran. It is evident that specifics were never provided; most likely, Israel never furnished the Americans with any detailed information about the specific operations it would conduct inside Iran to provoke anti-government protests.

Indeed, even Netanyahu himself has acknowledged that Israel was counting on mass anti-government protests in Iran. He stated explicitly that

Israel is creating the conditions for the Iranian people to take to the streets: "I am hopeful that this will be the outcome. We are working towards that."

It should be noted that there was a divergence of opinion in Israel regarding the likelihood of a popular uprising in Iran, joined by Iraqi Kurds, if the country's leaders were assassinated. According to reports from the American press, military intelligence (AMAN) in particular expressed scepticism regarding this plan. However, the input of military intelligence should be discounted, as Mossad has always been responsible for the planning.

However, there were divergent opinions even within the agency. In particular, Shahar Koifman, the former head of the Iran desk in the IDF's Military Intelligence Directorate, told the NYT that Israel had considered various options for undermining or overthrowing the Iranian government, but in his view, all of them were doomed to failure.

Yossi Cohen, former head of Mossad (before Barnea), also expressed scepticism about the likelihood of provoking an uprising in Iran. He considered any efforts to incite a rebellion within Iran to be a futile exercise, and directed that resources allocated to this objective be reduced to a minimum. During Cohen's tenure, which ended in 2021, Mossad calculated the number of Iranian citizens required to participate in protests to pose a genuine threat to the Iranian government.
It has been revealed that the vast majority of Iranians are reluctant to openly oppose the regime, even if they are dissatisfied with it, or they remain private and unwilling to risk anything. According to Mossad experts, the latter category exceeds 60%. Consequently, the prospect of garnering widespread support for any anti-government protests is highly improbable. It should also be noted that Iran's intelligence services and police are extremely effective in suppressing any protests.

In light of this, Israel's strategy toward Iran was revised under Cohen. To summarise, the weakening of the Islamic Republic's government was gradual, and took place through the implementation of economic sanctions and the targeted assassination of nuclear and missile scientists. The purpose of this strategy was to hinder the advancement of Tehran's military programmes. This strategy could have been implemented for decades, but such a timeframe was unacceptable to Israel's political leadership. In order to proceed with this project, it was necessary to either introduce something that was completely new, or to find a way to attract the United States as its primary strike force as soon as possible.

If we accept this version at face value, as it has appeared in the American press, it seems that Mossad leadership first mistook wishful thinking for reality and then "sold" their flawed conclusions to Netanyahu. He subsequently provided inaccurate analysis to Donald Trump. It is reported that there were intelligent people among the Americans who initially doubted Tel Aviv's accuracy in interpreting the intelligence data and even opposed the operation against Iran.

This interpretation is particularly convenient for Washington, as it allows the global failure to be attributed to the mistakes of individual people.

The then-head of Mossad, David Barnea, has since retired, and there's no way to hold him accountable retroactively. He is being held almost exclusively responsible for the failure of the "missile blitzkrieg" in Iran. Netanyahu, of course, is also somewhat at fault, having believed the information and faulty analysis Barnea provided, but that's just the way it is. The Israeli prime minister's reputation has weathered worse. Therefore, everyone in this story can be understood and forgiven.
However, an alternative interpretation exists that differs somewhat from the one that would be convenient for both Washington and Tel Aviv. It is my professional opinion that David Barnea is a mediocre intelligence officer and politician. He was perhaps one of the least successful Israeli intelligence leaders in history. It is possible that he genuinely believed he could incite an uprising in Iran and overthrow the regime. It is also possible that he somehow managed to deceive Netanyahu into believing the impossible. Notwithstanding the fact that relations between Barnea and Netanyahu had significantly worsened at the time, and the prime minister had little faith in the head of Mossad,

However, it is also possible to consider other potential outcomes. Israel and Netanyahu recognised that Trump's presidency, particularly following the dismissal of his opponents from the security forces, presented a unique opportunity for Tel Aviv. It presented a valuable opportunity to implement bold plans and innovative ideas. The experience of the brief war in the summer of 2025 demonstrated that Israel was incapable of dealing with Iran alone. Therefore,

It is imperative to utilise all available means to win over Washington, including the use of deception or the provision of erroneous information and incorrect analysis, if necessary.

The "Barnea Plan" is a timely proposal that has already attracted significant interest from Washington. It has been determined that a series of precise missile strikes targeting Iran's leadership and citizens, incensed by the "Ayatollah regime" and seeking freedom and democracy, would lead to the overthrow of the regime and the election of the heir to the Shah's throne, who has recently begun to make his mark on the American domestic scene. It was estimated that millions of Kurds will invade Iran, thus completing the defeat of the regime that is hostile to them.
If the "Barnea Plan" were not in existence, it would have to be invented. It appears that Israel has deliberately involved the United States in its own undertaking. A comprehensive analysis of the domestic political landscape in the United States and a psychological analysis of President Trump were conducted, leading to the conclusion that a unique opportunity to deal with Iran could be realised through the hands of the "big brother," who sincerely believed in his own success. This was particularly evident in the context of the events in Venezuela, which had a significant impact on the region.

It is evident that Trump's actions were strategically aligned with the interests of Israel.

"The initiation of this war was a response to mounting pressure from Israel and its influential American lobby," stated Joe Kent, former head of the US National Counterterrorism Center. He resigned in protest against the attack on Iran. The American press is currently diverting attention away from the US leadership, the Israeli lobby in the US, and Israel itself in relation to this attack.

It is evident that one must exercise caution when accepting information from individuals who appear to be aware of the situation, even when it comes to trusted colleagues or friends. In this case, the intelligence services and leadership of Israel. They are requesting that you take what may appear to be beneficial but are in fact very risky actions. Even the most powerful nation in the world is vulnerable to deception.