Critical roles of Eyal Zamir, Dan Caine, Brad Cooper in shaping the Iran war - exclusive

The Jerusalem Post exclusively reveals the critical, behind-the-scenes roles played by top military commanders in the recent conflict with Iran. While President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu made the ultimate decisions, this report underscores the profound influence of IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, US Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, and CENTCOM Chief Admiral Brad Cooper in shaping the war's trajectory.

“

In many ways, Zamir was key to convincing Caine and Cooper that such a war was feasible, such that they would support it, or at least not oppose it.

Our investigation details how Zamir was pivotal in gaining the support of Caine and Cooper, persuading them that the war was a viable option. Subsequently, Caine was essential in convincing President Trump, even amidst his own doubts. This intricate web of military influence highlights the complex dynamics that led to and sustained the conflict, with these commanders now bearing significant responsibility for both its successes and shortcomings.

“

Caine was then critical in convincing Trump that such a war was viable, even as the US chairman himself held doubts about significant aspects of the war, the Post understands.

The report also sheds light on the nuanced stances of these leaders regarding regime change in Iran. While Zamir was reportedly willing to "roll the dice" on fostering internal uprisings, Caine and Cooper were more focused on the initial military objectives, such as targeting missile and drone capabilities, and were hesitant about direct involvement in regime change efforts. This distinction in approach, particularly the US military's deliberate distance from direct regime change operations, had significant consequences, as detailed in our exclusive report. For our readership, understanding these military leadership dynamics is crucial to grasping the full picture of the Iran war.

“

All three military high commanders can largely be held responsible for the war's successes and shortcomings, even as aspects of the war's architecture might not have always followed their personal preferences.