On leverage - Zvi Bar'el in Haaretz:

‘While Trump may view the Israeli strike as useful leverage to bring Iran back to negotiations, Israel's position is fundamentally different: it holds that no agreement with Iran is worth signing and that a new reality must be created – one in which no agreement is necessary because Iran no longer has a nuclear program at all.
This vision is tempting to believe in, but it's important to remember that Israel has learned the hard way how misleading terms like "total victory" and "infrastructure collapse" can be, even when used in conflicts with far weaker actors than Iran.
Israel also cannot ignore the broader Arab and international context. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar – the three major financial powers that have pledged to invest trillions in the U.S. economy – have strongly opposed any Israeli, American, or joint strike on Iran. On Friday morning, Saudi Arabia condemned the attack and called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to stop it.’

(…)

‘Militarily, Iran's response has so far been limited to drone attacks on Israel. It has avoided using its Shiite militias in Iraq or Hezbollah in Lebanon to strike American or Arab targets – perhaps signaling a desire to keep the confrontation bilateral between Iran and Israel, rather than regional or involving the U.S. However, this posture could change if the Israeli attacks escalate or begin to threaten the regime's internal stability, not just its nuclear and missile infrastructure.

Israel, too, appears to be self-limiting – or being restrained by Trump – to actions that do not draw the U.S. into direct military involvement. Targeting nuclear and ballistic facilities while avoiding critical civilian infrastructure defines the current boundaries of "legitimate" warfare, and may be designed to avoid sparking popular unrest inside Iran.
The surgical elimination of military figures – and not senior civilian officials – is meant to signal that this is not a war against the Iranian people or the regime itself, but rather a campaign against those responsible for the country's military and strategic threat.
With the war in Gaza still ongoing, Israel and the U.S. will need to decide not only when the "gates of hell" were opened, but also when and how to close them. If not all nuclear sites are destroyed, a decision will have to be made about what counts as a "game-changing" success.
On this, Israel and Washington may be headed for a clash: Trump may view a renewed nuclear deal as a major achievement resulting from the strike. In contrast, Israel may see any such agreement as a failure, particularly if Iran is still able to pursue nuclear capabilities, even if enrichment is restricted.’

Read the article here.

Total victory? For Mr. Trump. In this scenario he is edging closer to the Nobel peace prize.

The question what else will be achieved with the attack against Iran remains to be seen.

This is what Amos Harel has to say about it:

‘Not only is Benjamin Netanyahu in a position of enormous power as the head of a brown-nosing cabinet that lacks any substance, ability or talents. Israel's defense establishment has also been weakened, and its leaders rarely express an independent opinion diverging from Netanyahu's views. Even more worrying is the fact that Netanyahu's personal considerations are far from being pure. He is in the midst of a political war for survival in which all means (and mistakes) are justified, as far as he is concerned, to preserve his rule. His actions and statements over the past two-and-a-half years have proven that this man no longer has any red lines. Instead, he consistently works to undermine Israeli democracy and harm the rule of law.’ Read the article here

A war, because king Bibi felt like. His whims are law.