Don't be surprised if there's a surprise.
Strategic deception has shaped battles across history. Don't be surprised if the U.S. and Israel are cooking something up as well.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
In June 2025, at a moment when all eyes were distracted by diplomatic noise and political commotion, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled off one of the most audacious strategic deceptions of the modern era.
In the run‑up to what would become a sweeping and devastating series of strikes against Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure, Netanyahu scheduled a long weekend. He talked about attending his son’s wedding and taking time off, allowing media outlets to portray him as a leader stepping back from geopolitics to focus on family life.
This narrative of a prime minister on “holiday,” absorbed in celebration rather than in battle, was part of a deliberate campaign to lull the Islamic Republic of Iran into a false sense of calm just before Israel launched a major strike, what became known as the 12-Day War.
That operation — which included coordinated assaults on Iran’s military leadership, nuclear sites, and strategic assets — succeeded precisely because it caught its target off guard. What looked like routine political life was, in fact, the calm before a calculated storm.
And now here we are again.
For the past several days, the broader US–Israel–Iran war has entered an uneasy lull. Headlines have shifted. And from the White House, President Donald Trump and his administration keep talking about a “deal” — a diplomatic off‑ramp, a negotiated pause, perhaps even an optimistic reframing of what looked, just days ago, like open conflict.
Recent reporting notes that the United States and Israel have “clashed” over how to end the conflict with Iran, with different ideas about negotiation, pressure, and timing. The Trump Administration has been reported at odds with Israel over specific strikes, including Israel’s attacks on Iranian oil infrastructure, which Trump publicly questioned or criticized. U.S. Vice President JD Vance took Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to task in a recent phone call for overstating the possibility that the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign in Iran could topple its regime, Axios reported.
The United States and Israel planned for Kurdish militia forces to invade Iran early in the ongoing war, hoping to spur a rebellion that would bring down the Islamic Republic — but leaks to the media, lobbying by allies, and wariness among the Kurds themselves led Washington to pull the plug on the idea, according to a report by Israel’s Channel 12.
Another Israeli outlet, Ynet News, said that in preparation for possible negotiations in Pakistan this week, the Americans may declare a ceasefire within two or three days — and Israel is operating on borrowed time.
But here’s the thing about news reports: The vast majority of them are placed there on purpose. They are not accidents, not random leaks, not casual chatter picked up by journalists. Every carefully worded story, every “exclusive” report, every quote from an unnamed source is a tool of influence. Governments, intelligence agencies, and political actors all know that information moves faster than armies, and they use it to shape perceptions, to manipulate assumptions, to set the stage for action — and even distraction.
Deception has been a cornerstone of warfare for thousands of years, often proving as decisive as strength or numbers.
In ancient times, the Greeks used the Trojan Horse, hiding soldiers inside a giant wooden statue to trick the Trojans into opening their city gates. Sun Tzu, in “The Art of War,” wrote that “all warfare is based on deception,” emphasizing feigned retreats, false intelligence, and ambushes to manipulate the enemy’s expectations. Even classical battles like Hannibal’s victory at Cannae relied on misdirection, using a deliberately weak center to lure the Romans into a trap, proving that clever deception can outweigh brute force.
In the medieval and early modern periods, Mongol armies under Genghis Khan famously staged feigned retreats to draw enemies into ambushes, while European commanders employed dummy soldiers, false signals, and decoy fortifications to confuse attackers. Napoleon Bonaparte leveraged misinformation and fake troop movements to mislead opponents about the size and location of his forces, and George Washington used deceptive maneuvers to preserve his smaller army against the British during the Revolutionary War.
The 20th century introduced industrial-scale deception, combining technology and intelligence in unprecedented ways. In World War II, operations like Bodyguard and Fortitude used fake armies, inflatable tanks, false radio traffic, and double agents to convince Germany that the D-Day invasion would target Pas-de-Calais instead of Normandy. In the Gulf War, coalition forces deployed electronic deception and dummy tanks to mislead Iraqi commanders about the true direction of armored assaults.
Israel has repeatedly employed deception, from feigned retreats and false intelligence to highly orchestrated media narratives. During the Second Lebanon War and earlier operations in southern Lebanon, simulated troop concentrations and staged withdrawals were used to confuse Hezbollah and the PLO about Israel’s true intentions and movements.
In Operation Orchard (2007), a covert airstrike on a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor, the mission depended on electronic countermeasures, camouflage, and intelligence deception to ensure the target was unaware until it was too late. Similarly, in Gaza, Israeli forces have often leaked false troop positions or dummy targets to Hamas before major ground incursions, forcing defensive units to relocate or misallocate resources.
When the Yom Kippur War broke out on October 6, 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a coordinated surprise attack on Israel. Israeli forces were initially overwhelmed, and early setbacks created a real sense of existential threat. Within the first couple of days, the situation was dire: Israeli troops were suffering heavy losses, and Egypt had crossed the Suez Canal while Syrian forces advanced on the Golan Heights.
Facing potential annihilation, Israel reportedly moved its tactical nuclear weapons into a heightened alert status, including preparing some for potential deployment. The purpose was not to use them immediately, but to send a signal to the United States that Israel’s survival was in jeopardy and that it might be forced to escalate to nuclear use if conventional aid did not arrive.
U.S. intelligence detected unusual Israeli nuclear activity, which alarmed Washington and contributed to the decision to launch Operation Nickel Grass, the rapid airlift of U.S. weapons, tanks, and supplies to Israel — helping turn the tide of the war.
In biblical times, Israelite leaders frequently relied on clever misdirection: Joshua used an ambush and feigned retreat to capture the city of Ai, while David repeatedly disguised himself and used secret routes to evade King Saul’s pursuit. Perhaps the most famous example is Queen Esther, who concealed her Jewish identity in the Persian court and orchestrated a carefully timed revelation that saved her people from annihilation under Haman’s decree.
During the Maccabean Revolt, Judas Maccabeus and his smaller forces repeatedly used ambushes, night attacks, and feigned withdrawals to defeat far larger Seleucid armies. In medieval Europe, Jewish communities often relied on false identities, secret routes, and hidden manuscripts to survive periods of persecution, while spies and covert operatives in Ottoman and European courts employed deception to protect Jewish lives and influence outcomes.
Across history, the principles of deception have remained remarkably consistent: misdirection, false narratives, concealment of true intentions, exploitation of enemy assumptions, and integration of intelligence or information as a weapon.
Today, when political and military leaders manipulate media, leak selective reports, or create the illusion of calm, they are continuing this ancient tradition, proving that what appears to be “diplomacy” may actually hide the decisive strike yet to come.
Reminds me of what Yogi Berra said. “Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future.”
So true. Strategic deception has always been part of warfare, and Trump has used this pattern repeatedly — talk about negotiations, give deadlines, extend them, and then act decisively.
That’s why all the talk right now about mediation or negotiations may simply be part of the same playbook. It’s hard to believe the U.S. and Israel would enter a conflict with Iran without already planning for its most obvious leverage points, like the Strait of Hormuz or Kharg Island. When Marines and major naval assets move into the region, they’re not there symbolically.
Ironically, the constant chorus from progressive politicians, activists, and much of the media insisting that negotiations are the only path may actually help sell the illusion. If Iran believes the West is desperate for talks, it may underestimate what is actually being prepared. Sometimes the loudest calls for diplomacy become part of the deception itself.