Israeli Military Requests Extended Timeline for Iran Operations

On March 24, 2026, as U.S. President Donald Trump declared "productive" negotiations were underway to end the war with Iran, a senior official in the Israeli military's operations directorate delivered a blunt counter-narrative: "We are in many ways halfway there" [1]. The Israeli Defense Forces want several more weeks of fighting — at minimum three — to complete what they describe as unfinished strategic objectives against Iran [4].

The gap between Washington's diplomatic signals and Jerusalem's military ambitions has become the central tension of a conflict now entering its fourth week, one that has killed thousands, disrupted a fifth of the world's oil supply, and raised fundamental questions about proportionality, endgame, and who decides when the war is over.

How the War Began

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated surprise strikes on Iran under the codenames "Operation Epic Fury" (U.S.) and "Operation Roaring Lion" (Israel). Nearly 900 strikes were carried out in the first 12 hours, targeting missile installations, air defenses, nuclear infrastructure, and senior leadership — including the compound of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the opening salvo [2][6].

President Trump outlined four stated objectives: preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, destroying its missile arsenal and production facilities, degrading its proxy networks, and neutralizing its navy [15]. Israel framed its parallel operation around eliminating what it described as an existential threat from Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities [14].

The opening phase expanded rapidly. By early March, Iran had retaliated with over 500 ballistic and naval missiles and nearly 2,000 drones [2]. The conflict soon extended beyond Iranian and Israeli borders, with strikes hitting targets across Lebanon, the Gulf states, and disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz [6].

What the Israeli Military Says It Still Needs

The IDF's case for extension rests on a specific assessment: significant tactical gains have been achieved, but no "full strategic victory" has been secured [1]. According to the senior operations official, the war has degraded Iran's chain of command, delayed its nuclear program, and destroyed much of its military-industrial base — but Iran remains "an active, dangerous player in the region" [1].

The military claims it has destroyed or disabled the majority of Iran's ballistic missile launchers and driven missile production to zero [15]. Israeli intelligence estimates place the destruction of Iranian launch capabilities at over 70 percent [15]. Yet the IDF says thousands of additional targets remain across Tehran and other parts of the country, and it is planning at least three more weeks of operations to systematically degrade Iran's defense industry [4].

The specific remaining objectives include continued strikes against weapons manufacturing facilities, command-and-control infrastructure, and economic assets supporting Iran's military capacity. The military has also expanded its target set over the course of the conflict to include logistical and economic infrastructure beyond the original scope [15].

The Human Cost

Casualty figures remain contested and difficult to verify due to restricted media access inside Iran.

Iran: The NGO Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA) documented 3,114 deaths by March 17, including 1,354 civilians, 1,138 military personnel, and 622 unclassified [8]. The Iranian Red Crescent reported that over 6,668 civilian structures had been targeted by U.S.-Israeli strikes as of March 7, including 5,535 residential units, 14 medical centers, and 65 schools [3]. Earlier figures from the Red Crescent cited over 600 civilian deaths by March 3 alone [3].

Israel: Sixteen fatalities have been recorded inside Israel since February 28, of which 14 were civilians and two were military personnel. Over 4,000 Israelis have been injured [3][8]. Iranian missiles have continued reaching Israeli territory despite air defense systems; one struck a residential neighborhood in Tel Aviv [1].

Lebanon: At least 1,039 people have been killed by renewed Israeli strikes on Lebanon, with 2,876 wounded [8].

U.S. and Gulf States: Thirteen U.S. soldiers and 21 people in Gulf states have also been killed [8].

These figures carry significant uncertainty. Independent verification inside Iran has been hampered by internet restrictions and limited journalist access. The gap between Iranian government figures and NGO counts — and the absence of comprehensive UN monitoring on the ground — means that the full civilian toll remains unknown.

Source: HRANA / Al Jazeera / Modern Diplomacy casualty trackers

Data as of Mar 17, 2026CSV

The Financial Burden

The war is costing Israel between $480 million and $550 million per day, according to financial estimates reported by Calcalist [9]. The initial three days of operations cost between $645 million and $970 million daily before moderating [9].

At this rate, a 30-day campaign would cost approximately $12.6–12.9 billion [9]. Israel's government has already revised its 2026 defense budget from an initial NIS 112 billion ($36.1 billion) to NIS 144 billion ($46.5 billion), with an additional NIS 33 billion (~$10.6 billion) projected by year-end [9][10]. Netanyahu's cabinet approved adding $13 billion in supplemental war funding in early March [10].

For context, Israel's GDP was approximately $530 billion in 2025. The war expenditure — if extended by the requested three weeks — would consume roughly 3–4% of annual GDP in a single month of military operations.

Oil Prices and Global Economic Fallout

The conflict's most far-reaching consequence has been the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of global oil supply transits [17]. Iran's closure of the strait following the initial strikes triggered what the International Energy Agency called "the greatest global energy security challenge in history" [17].

Oil flows through Hormuz collapsed from 20 million barrels per day to near zero [17]. The Dallas Federal Reserve estimated that the disruption would raise the average WTI oil price to $98 per barrel and lower global GDP growth by 2.9 percentage points in Q2 2026 [17]. Brent crude approached $120 per barrel in mid-March, nearing the 2008 record of $147 [17].

FRED data confirms the price shock: WTI crude sat near $66 in late February before spiking to $93 by mid-March — a 40% increase within weeks [18].

Source: FRED / U.S. Energy Information Administration

Data as of Mar 16, 2026CSV

Asian economies face the heaviest burden, receiving more than 80% of oil and LNG shipped through the strait. European natural gas benchmarks nearly doubled [17].

The Nuclear Question

Israel and the United States have cited Iran's nuclear program as a primary justification for military action. Israeli assessments in February 2026 described Iran as racing to rebuild nuclear and missile capabilities [14]. The IAEA calculated that on the eve of the June 2025 Israeli strikes, Iran possessed 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to 60% — enough, if further processed to 90%, to fuel nine nuclear weapons [14].

However, the Arms Control Association challenged the characterization of this as an imminent threat [14]. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi stated that his agency did not "see a structured program to manufacture nuclear weapons" and confirmed Iran was not "days or weeks away from building a bomb" [14]. The 2025 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment concluded Iran lacked ballistic missiles capable of reaching the United States, with ICBM development potentially extending to 2035 or beyond [14].

Before the February 28 strikes, the U.S. and Iran had conducted three rounds of negotiations mediated by Oman. Iran had reportedly proposed a years-long pause on enrichment with broad verification measures [14]. Critics argue these diplomatic channels were abandoned prematurely.

As of late February 2026, the IAEA reported it had lost access to all four of Iran's declared enrichment facilities, creating a monitoring gap that some analysts warn could make post-war verification more difficult [14].

Legal Battles Over Justification

The legal framework governing the conflict has been intensely contested. The United States invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter — the right of self-defense — in a letter to the United Nations [13]. Proponents identified three independent legal justifications: collective self-defense (responding to Iranian attacks on Israel), individual self-defense (responding to Iranian-backed attacks on U.S. forces), and defense against an imminent nuclear threat [11].

A broad consensus among international law scholars, however, has questioned the legality of Operation Epic Fury [13]. Critics at Just Security argued that the scale of strikes — particularly those targeting civilian infrastructure, economic assets, and sites far removed from military objectives — exceeded what self-defense permits [12][13]. Under international humanitarian law, military operations must satisfy the principles of necessity, proportionality, and distinction between military and civilian objects.

UN human rights experts called for immediate de-escalation and accountability, expressing concern about strikes on residential areas, medical facilities, and schools [13]. The expansion of the target set beyond the initial military objectives has drawn particular scrutiny from legal analysts who question whether infrastructure strikes serve a legitimate military purpose or constitute collective punishment [12].

Israel's legal position rests on the argument that Iran's entire military-industrial complex constitutes a legitimate target given the existential nature of the threat, and that degrading Iran's capacity to reconstitute its forces is a necessary component of self-defense [11].

Domestic Politics: High Support, Growing Cracks

Israeli public support for the war has been remarkably high. A survey by the Israel Democracy Institute taken March 2–3 found 93% of Jewish Israelis and 26% of Arab Israelis supported the operation, for an overall figure of 82% [19]. A follow-up survey a week later showed slight erosion: 92.5% among Jewish Israelis and roughly 25% among Arab Israelis [19].

Support spans the political spectrum among Jewish Israelis, though with variation: 97% on the right, 93% in the center, and 76% on the left [19]. Most Israeli Arabs (65%) oppose the fighting [19].

But analysts have detected early signs of fatigue. Millions of Israelis continue spending hours in bomb shelters as Iranian missiles reach Israeli territory [20]. Political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin noted: "The perceived threat of Iran seems to rise above some of the deepest political divisions in Israeli life. But we don't know how long that effect will last" [20].

Cynicism about government motives is gaining ground. Some Israelis have expressed doubt about whether the war serves national security or political survival, with one poll respondent telling NPR: "There's internal reasons for war in Israel that would be good for the government" [20].

The Diplomatic Gap

The most consequential question may be whether Israel gets to decide when the war ends. Trump's public statements about "productive" negotiations — combined with his postponement of threatened strikes on Iranian power plants — suggest the White House is pivoting toward diplomacy [5][7].

The Trump administration submitted a 15-point ceasefire proposal to Iran through Pakistani intermediaries, covering many of the demands from earlier nuclear negotiations in Geneva [7]. Pakistan, Egypt, Oman, and Turkey are all playing backchannel roles [1][7]. One mediating country proposed a temporary ceasefire to enable detailed negotiations, but the administration reportedly prefers negotiating while military operations continue to maintain leverage [7].

Israel was not consulted beforehand about the diplomatic outreach, according to analysts — a significant departure [5]. Political scientist Ori Goldberg characterized the dynamic bluntly: "Is it a defeat for Netanyahu? Hell, yes! It's Trump essentially ditching Israel" [5]. Former ambassador Alon Pinkas suggested Trump may recognize that "Netanyahu may have duped [Trump] on how quick and resounding a victory would be" [5].

Netanyahu has responded carefully, acknowledging Trump's diplomatic efforts while continuing strikes. He stated that the president "believes there is an opportunity to leverage the tremendous achievements" toward an agreement "that will safeguard our vital interests" [1][5]. His far-right coalition partners, who had framed the war as aimed at regime change, face the prospect of an outcome that leaves Iran's government standing.

What Happens If Operations Stop Now

The Israeli military's argument for extension implicitly answers this question: with 70% of missile launchers destroyed but Iran still firing missiles at Israeli cities, a premature halt would leave Iran with residual strike capability and the industrial base to rebuild [1][15]. The IDF assessment that it is "halfway there" suggests that concluding operations on the original timeline would leave thousands of identified targets intact.

The specific risk, as framed by Israeli security officials, is that Iran could reconstitute its ballistic missile and drone production capabilities within months absent continued strikes on manufacturing infrastructure. With IAEA monitors locked out of enrichment facilities, the nuclear monitoring gap adds another dimension of uncertainty [14].

Against this, critics note that extended bombing of a country with 90 million people cannot eliminate all military capacity, and that the destruction of civilian infrastructure may generate the conditions for long-term instability and radicalization rather than security [12][13].

The Week Ahead

The war enters its fourth week with its trajectory uncertain. The Israeli military is preparing for at least three more weeks of strikes. The Trump administration is waiting for Iran's response to its ceasefire proposal. Iran has publicly denied that negotiations exist while continuing to launch missiles [7].

The outcome may depend less on military metrics than on a political question: whether Washington will continue to support Israeli operations that extend beyond what American diplomacy now appears ready to conclude. Netanyahu's challenge is to secure enough time to claim strategic victory before the diplomatic window closes — or before the $550-million-a-day price tag, the mounting casualties, and the global economic disruption make continuation untenable.