Ex-IDF commander disputes Trump Iran claims, warns nuclear program may endure

A former Israeli Defense Forces commander says Israel’s response to Hamas’s Oct. 7 assault contained mistakes and that his unit acted without orders as they evacuated civilians and fought terrorists, describing the day as a chaotic surprise that exposed gaps in IDF preparedness. Amit Govrin, who led troops in Gaza and was severely wounded, losing sight in his right eye, told the Daily Mail that the episode required improvised actions on the ground and a rethinking of Israel’s strategic posture in the region. He stressed that the longer-term resolution to the Gaza war would depend on international diplomacy, not only military moves by Israel.

Govrin said his unit operated independently during the surprise attack, and he said the experience underscored what he described as an urgent need for structure, order, and a coherent strategy inside Israel’s security apparatus two years into the conflict. He characterized October 7 as a "valuable lesson" that revealed gaps in preparedness and highlighted the difficulty of coordinating frontline efforts under sudden, high-intensity pressure. He noted that while some mistakes occurred on Israel’s part, the broader picture was one of a force trying to respond rapidly while civilians were being evacuated and terrorists targeted.

Govrin articulated a forward-looking framework for ending the war that centers on international pressure targeting Hamas to release hostages, followed by regional security arrangements that involve all relevant diplomatic actors and address Iran’s perceived strategic threat. He told the Daily Mail that public pressure should come from the international community, not solely from Israel, and insisted that a durable peace would require a regional security pact that contends with Iran’s role in the conflict and its broader ambitions in the region. He also urged that any long-term settlement account for broader security guarantees and a mechanism for monitoring and enforcing calm across borders.

On Iran, Govrin directly challenged the Trump administration’s public stance that U.S. strikes had dismantled Tehran’s nuclear capabilities. He said, “I am not sure that all the nuclear programs have been dismantled,” and warned that Tehran could still maintain hidden sites or undeclared capabilities. He pointed to what he described as indicators that Iran retains a nuclear timeline, including the movement of cooling equipment—“chillers”—used in uranium processing from facilities he believed remained under Iranian control. He argued that such activity suggests that Iran could still pursue nuclear weapons, and he called for a more restrictive and aggressive U.S. policy toward Iran, signaling that there may be additional sites and future plans that require scrutiny.

Experts and U.S. intelligence assessments have offered a different reading. A Defense Intelligence Agency assessment cited by Govrin and others concluded that U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities had delayed the program by only a few months rather than eliminating it. Govrin used that point to bolster his warning that Iran retains residual capabilities and could resume nuclear development if pressures or conditions shift. He stressed that verification remains limited and cautioned against complacency about the perceived success of past strikes.

Govrin also weighed in on the political dimension in Israel, arguing that accountability for the October 7 failures extends beyond any single leader. He suggested that many Israelis have chosen to keep their heads down as the storm continues, and he offered a blunt assessment of the country’s diplomacy: “Israel didn’t do the best job at keeping our allies closer.” He hinted that Netanyahu’s fate could be shaped by next year’s elections and that Israel might be approaching a crossroads in leadership, though he stopped short of endorsing any specific outcome. When asked whether Netanyahu would survive if President Trump turned against him, Govrin responded with a nuanced view of the relationship between the two leaders, saying they are “much closer than people think” and that the public likely does not know the full extent of their cooperation.

In Govrin’s view, a two-state solution is not feasible while Hamas retains control of Gaza, and he suggested that the political climate within Israel would ultimately decide the prime minister’s electoral fate. He said the country needs to reassess its diplomatic approach, arguing that stronger ties with allies and a more coherent regional strategy are essential as the war persists and hostage negotiations continue. He told Daily Mail that the focus should shift toward creating structure and order within Israel’s security framework as the conflict evolves, with leadership changes possibly on the horizon in the context of next year’s elections.

As the war drags on, Govrin’s remarks underscore a broader debate about how to balance military actions, hostage diplomacy, and regional long-term security in a volatile Middle East. The former commander’s warnings about Iran’s continued ambitions and his call for international pressure on Hamas add a perspective that contrasts with official statements from Washington and Jerusalem, highlighting the complexity of ensuring both safety for Israeli civilians and a sustainable path to regional stability. While the future remains uncertain, Govrin’s analysis emphasizes that the outcome may hinge as much on diplomatic alignment and credible deterrence as on battlefield momentum.