Sneak Peek: Amit Segal on the outcome of the Iran War and Israel’s next era

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Sneak Peek: Amit Segal on the Outcome of the Iran War and Israel’s Next Era"
Call Me Back – with Dan Senor (Ark Media), May 9, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This "Inside" edition of Call Me Back features a candid, members-only conversation between host Dan Senor and prominent Israeli journalist and commentator Amit Segal. The episode explores the fallout of the recent Israel-Iran war, Israeli societal dilemmas, and the search for a renewed national vision amid ongoing political and existential challenges. Segal addresses member questions, giving listeners an insider's perspective on Israeli public opinion, political maneuvering, and deeper cultural rifts and resiliencies.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Iran War: Public Expectations and Regime Change

Timestamps: 01:50–06:07

• Israeli Consensus:

  • Israelis perceive the Iran question as existential, not merely political or policy-based. The war's support stemmed from a collective desire to end a 47-year existential threat.
    • Amit Segal: “For Israelis, the Iranian question is not something political...it’s something existential.” (02:18)
  • The broad consensus behind the war was built on implicit expectations—primarily regime change in Iran or at least the end of its nuclear threat. The idea that "vague objectives" were a political strategy is discussed.
    • “Was that [vagueness] a mistake? I would not define necessarily the nuclear threat as such. I would say even more generally that it was toppling the regime...” (02:18)

• Predictions and Political Timelines:

  • Senior Israeli intelligence sources predict the Iranian regime will collapse by the end of 2026—a timeline closely tied to Israeli elections.
  • Netanyahu’s political stakes: Success before the October 2026 election is critical for him.
    • “He needs this victory as early as possible.” (03:31)

• Iranian Domestic Unrest:

  • Massive Iranian street protests (millions strong), harsher regime crackdowns (7,000 killed, 25,000 arrested), and looming hunger are discussed as pressure points accelerating regime instability.
    • “Within two months from now, hunger will start spreading in Iran...people will have nothing to fear of because they are starving.” (04:32)

2. War Success: Israeli Debate & Public Opinion

Timestamps: 05:21–06:07

• Open Debate:

  • Israeli society is openly debating whether the war was truly a success, with prominent analysts and officials taking opposing views—in a conversation that crosses typical right-left divides.
    • “I was just struck by how open and robust this debate was within Israel. And this wasn't like a right left thing necessarily.” (05:04)

• Public Mood:

  • The public may lack policy details but maintains clarity on outcomes: as long as the Iranian regime remains and uranium enrichment continues, "the mission has not been accomplished."
    • “People...know quite vaguely that this regime is still here and the uranium is still under the ground in Fordo and Isfahan. And as long as those two facts are valid, the mission has not been accomplished yet.” (05:58)

3. Vision for Israel’s Next Era: Leadership and Societal Cohesion

Timestamps: 06:07–12:49

• Looking for Bold Vision:

  • Listeners ask: Who is articulating a big, inspiring vision for Israel, akin to the founders?
  • Segal questions the romanticized view of Israel’s founding generation, highlighting their utopian socialist dreams and internal violence.
    • “[The founders’] vision...was a socialist, almost communist country in which high tech could have never flourish...owners of private property were perceived as almost criminals…There was a polarized debate among the founders that would build the state.” (07:12–08:14)

• Division and Unity:

  • Israel’s early years were marked by deep and sometimes violent divisions—including spying on opposition leaders and political violence.
    • “I was shocked to see the amount of violence, including assassinations, murders, violent protests, the military and the shin bet spying after opposition leaders.” (08:14)
  • Despite present-day polarization, cultural resilience and communal response in crisis remain; societal bonds outlast momentary animosity.
    • Segal: “On October 7, after a year of protests...people went together to fight for their brothers and sisters without thinking...whether it's a religious kibbutz or a secular leftist one.” (09:29)

• Modern Visionaries:

  • Different leaders represent divergent visions:
    • Left/rising stars: Yer Golan (secular, progressive),
    • Right: Smotrich (greater, more religious Israel),
    • Netanyahu: Technological superpower vision (AI, cyber, security),
    • Ultra-Orthodox: Focus on self-preservation, not national vision (“the country...is like a huge ATM”).
    • “Actually, the only party that doesn’t have this idealism is the ultra Orthodox party...what happens if 100% of the population are going to be ultra Orthodox? ...the country would cease to exist.” (12:21)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Eliminating this huge danger [from Iran] is something in their bones, in their kishkevs.”
  — Amit Segal (02:18)

• “As soon as the uranium is still underground in Fordo and Isfahan...the mission has not been accomplished yet.”
  — Amit Segal (05:58)

• “There were deep divisions in the founding. I mean, deeply violent, violent divisions…spying after opposition leaders.”
  — Dan Senor and Amit Segal (08:04–08:32)

• “If you want to find it, this forgotten good old land of Israel, you should look for it in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, and of course, over Tehran. It’s still there, by and large.”
  — Amit Segal (09:11)

• “On the one hand, you can have this deeply divided country...and on the other hand, they know when something's important and just pivot, even if they're under the command of a government they detest. …That is a sign of health in a society.”
  — Dan Senor (10:45)

---

Timeline of Important Segments

• 01:50 – Amit Segal joins, fielding listener questions
• 02:18 – Existential nature of Iran threat for Israelis
• 03:31 – Israeli intelligence prediction: Iranian regime’s collapse
• 04:32 – Iranian fury vs. fear, hunger and regime stability
• 05:21 – Israeli openness about war debate
• 06:07 – Discussion about Israel’s next vision, founders’ reality vs. myth
• 08:14 – Political violence in Israel’s earliest years
• 09:11 – Definition of Israeli unity and culture’s lasting impact
• 11:26 – Contrasting Israeli visions and the ultra-Orthodox “ATM” analogy
• 12:49 – End of content

---

Tone & Closing Thoughts

Dan Senor and Amit Segal maintain a frank but thoughtful tone throughout, blending historical realism, political analysis, and a touch of humor as they puncture myths and spotlight Israel’s ongoing dilemmas. The episode is equal parts sobering—about Israel’s internal and external struggles—and optimistic, surveying both cultural endurance and the possibility of transformative leadership.

---

Summary prepared for listeners seeking in-depth context, memorable highlights, and a roadmap to the pivotal ideas discussed in this episode.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, it's Dan. This is a sneak peek from the members only edition of our show, Inside Call Me Back, where we pull back the curtain and have the conversations we typically have after the cameras stop rolling. Over the past couple of years, Call Me Back has grown into something much bigger than we ever expected. A place for clarity, context, and honest conversations at a time when those things can seem hard to find. That's what ARC Media is all about. Building a truly independent voice, which means no one shaping what we say or how we say it. To help support our rapidly expanding operations, we created inside CallMeBack, our members only feed. If CallMeBack has been meaningful to you and you want to be part of what we're building, I hope you'll join us. Right now we're offering an annual subscription for $60. That's just $5 a month. Your contribution goes a long way in helping us show up when it matters most. You can [e-mail] or through the link in the show and to our insiders. Thank you.

[B]

You are listening to an art media podcast. Welcome to the inside edition of the Call Me Back podcast where we pull back the curtain and have the conversations we typically have after the cameras stop rolling. Thank you for subscribing to the show and supporting the Call Me Back podcast and everything we do here at ark. We are grateful for it. It really helps us do what we do today. In the hot seat, addressing your questions and contemplating your personal dilemmas is ARK Media contributor Amit Sehgal. Amit, welcome back to the Inside.

[C]

Welcome again.

[B]

Amit, let's jump right in. We've got a lot of questions for you here. The first one is Ashley from New Jersey. Polls in Israel suggest that most Israelis believe that if the war with Iran won't end, its nuclear the war cannot be considered a success. This suggests that the broad consensus to go to war was rooted in that expectation. Do you think that keeping the objectives of the war vague was intentional to build that consensus? And if so, was that a mistake?

[C]

I think for Israelis, the Iranian question is not something political like the interest rate or immigration. It's something existential. So for them, eliminating this huge danger is something in their bones, in their kishkevs. I would not define necessarily the nuclear threat as such. I would say even more generally that it was toppling the regime, because only if this regime is removed, it allows you to breathe. Finally, after 47 years of existential threat, that's the reason for the bitterness. People were willing to sit in the shelters for 40 days you remember all those pouring parties in shelters and weddings. But they want results and they might get the result only in a few months or even in a few years. I've just published on it's known in Israel that a very, very senior Israeli source within the intelligence community predicts that this regime is to fall by the end of 2026, which is less than eight months from now. This is quite encouraging, but I want to remind that the election are to be held on October 27, 2026, the latest. So for Netanyahu, it doesn't really matter if it happens in on October 28th with Bennett or Eisenhower's prime ministers. He needs this victory as early as possible.

[B]

I want to come back to the political implications, but can you just briefly tell us what on earth is that based on that's very precise, like why the end of 2026?

[C]

And you know that within the intelligence community people are very, very cautious. Plus they are blamed by both the American media and the is for actually dragging Trump into this war to no avail, in vain. So it was very, very interesting, but the source insisted, he said, that the level of fury, epic fury by Iranians is higher than it was in January,

[B]

directed at the regime.

[C]

Exactly. When they stoned the streets by millions, however, the level of fear went up as well due to the killing of something like 7,000 protesters and the arresting of another 25,000. So the argument basically says that as long as there isn't an agreement that gives this regime oxygen, money, commodities, etc. Within two months from now, hunger will start spreading in Iran, first in the low classes who by and large supported the regime, and then up to the middle and the upper classes, which means that in two months from now people will have nothing to fear of because they are starving.

[B]

Okay, coming back to the question to Ashley, I'm curious about this because I just mentioned to Elon the other day, I was watching this debate between a senior Israeli military analyst and then former cabinet official Steinitz, who you know, and Steinitz was arguing that the war was successful and the military analyst was arguing that it wasn't. And so I was just struck by how open and robust this debate was within Israel. And this wasn't like a right left thing necessarily.

[C]

Right.

[B]

It was like a serious conversation about maybe it wasn't so successful. So I guess is that playing out? Because I'm just wondering in the polls that you're seeing, do Israelis or Israelis having this conversation, was it worth it?

[C]

Yes, Israelis are having it and I'm not sure they are into the details. Like Mr. Heimer and Mr. Steinz, who I respect a lot. I respect both of them. Unlike the vast majority of the former leadership of the security apparatus, however, I don't think people are really into the details, but they know quite vaguely that this regime is still here and the uranium is still under the ground in Fordo and Isfahan. And as long as those two facts are valid, the mission has not been accomplished yet. That's the main thing.

[B]

Okay, Natalie from Brooklyn asks, when you look back at Israel's founding generation, there was a sense of a big animating vision for what the country could become. Not just how to navigate the moment, but how to shape a future. So I'm curious, who, if anyone, do you see articulating that kind of bold, coherent vision for Israel's next era, both among current candidates for prime minister and perhaps more importantly, the rising stars beyond them? Amit, before you answer the question, Natalie adds a P.S. a postscript. No need to include any of this in the question on air, but I've been loving the election specials on the podcast. So that's a hat tip to you, Amit, and to Nadav. I've been loving the election specials on the podcast she writes. And also fun fact, Nadav was my professor. He was an excellent teacher, FYI. And I know, Amit, you feel the same way that you view Nadav as an excellent teacher. You are ever his dutiful pupil, learning from the master. So you and Natalie have that in common. But how do you respond to her question about is anyone articulating a vision? By the way, I'm not sure she's I think people have a romanticized view of the founding generation and how yeah, go ahead.

[C]

So while I admire the founding fathers of Israel, I even have their puppets here, Belgian and Begin, et cetera. We have to bear in mind that their vision, their utopia, was a socialist, almost communist country in which high tech could have never flourish. You know, owners of private property were perceived as almost criminals whose guilt has not been proved yet. And the melting pot, which means that even if you made aliyah from Morocco or Iraq, you're supposed to give up your identity in order to become the new Israeli. So I put it aside.

[B]

Can I add one other point?

[C]

Yeah, sure.

[B]

I agree with everything you're saying. Also, this romanticized view, as much as I'm moved by it and I there were deep divisions in the founding. I mean deeply violent, violent divisions.

[C]

Absolutely.

[B]

Israeli society among the founding generation. By the way, as is the case with most founding of modern States, there was a polarized debate among the founders that would build the state.

[C]

I'm writing a book now about Israeli politics from the 50s, and I was shocked to see the amount of violence, including assassinations, murders, violent protests, the military and the shin bets. Spying after opposition leaders.

[B]

Meaning spying on opposition leaders within.

[C]

Yes, yes.

[B]

Yeah, yeah, Right, right.

[C]

I just finished reading a book about Jewish political violence on the first decade of the country. 350 pages just to describe the violence in one during one decade. So there are something to miss, and some that we don't have to miss. As for the sentiment of being part of something bigger and not focusing only on ourselves, I would say that it would emerge from the grassroots activists once they finish being reservists. I think if you want to find it, this forgotten good old land of Israel, you should look for it in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, and of course, over Tehran. It's still there, by and large. You know, there is a huge debate what shapes countries more, culture or politics? And I think culture shapes it more. And when I say culture, I mean how people behave to each other. The fact that on October 7, after a year of protests in which people shouted at each other, you traitors, death eaters and murderers, people went together to fight for their brothers and sisters without thinking for a second whether it's a religious kibbutz or a secular leftist one, I think it signals that it's still here.

[B]

Yeah, I remember Lon sending me a tweet back in June of last year. So keep in mind, June of 2025, the final hostage deal is still not done. It's still about two and a half months away, three months away, longer than that. So there's still a lot of hostages in Gaza. The society is still deeply divided. There's still a big swath of Israeli society that's blaming the Israeli government for not getting the hostages out. And so it's kind of a toxic environment. And they would do these protests. It feels like ancient history now, but they would have these protests every Saturday night, these big protests all over the country. But it's. The big ones were in Tel Aviv, and then the June war started against Iran. And Holland sent me this hilarious tweet in Hebrew that basically said, there are no protests in Tel Aviv tonight because all the protesters are flying over Tehran. And it was just such a fantastic. Because it was such a layered point. But one of the layers was what you're just describing, that on the one moment, the one hand, you can have this deeply divided country, and by all optics, it is deeply divided. And the other hand, they know when something's important and they just pivot, even if it's they're under the command of a government they detest.

[C]

Absolutely.

[B]

And that, to me is actually not to say that there aren't huge challenges in Israeli society, but that is a sign of health in a society that I'm sad to say, I don't think you'd find in most parts of the west today, including the United States.

[C]

Right.

[B]

But back to Natalie's question. Is there anyone articulating a bold vision for Israel's future rather than just a muddling through? I think what she's saying is like, there's a what do we do about the draft issue? What do we do about this? What do we do? Muddling through a bunch of messy contemporary issues versus trying to inspire the country for something big in the future.

[C]

I once witnessed a conversation between Yossi Sarid, who was the leader of the Israeli left, and Efi Etam was the leader of the religious right. And they agreed the only Israel in which they can live together is Israel, because Yossi Sarit would never be able to live in Fey Eitam's future ideal Israel and vice versa. So yes, the left has a vision and Yer Golan has a vision of a secular liberal country, progressive country. Smotrich has a vision of a greater Israel, more religious. And Netanyahu has a vision of regional superpower and an international power with sophisticated AI, cyber and security industries. Well, actually, the only party that doesn't have this idealism is the ultra Orthodox party. Because the ultra Orthodox parties, what they have is only to live at the moment as a sector. There is a country, okay? It's like a huge ATM and we take money from there because we believe that studying Torah, learning Torah, helps the country to survive. But they do not have any explanation or vision for what is going to happen once the altar Orthodox take over the country. What happens if 100% of the population are going to be ultra Orthodox? And the answer is, of course, that the country would cease to exist. So, yes, there are many, many options.

[B]

That's it for our sneak peek today.

[A]

If you want to catch the full episode, please subscribe to Inside.

[B]

Call me back by following the link

[A]

in the description or by going to

[B]

arkmedia.org that's arkmedia.org your support is what allows us to do what we do here at ARC Media. I hope to see you there.

[A]

Call Me Back is produced and edited

[B]

by Lon Benatar, ARC Media's executive producer is Adam James Levin. Areddi.

[A]

Our production manager is Brittany Cohn.

[B]

Our community manager is Ava Weiner.

[A]

Sound and video editing by Liquid Audio.

[B]

Our music was composed by Yuval Semo.

[A]

Until next time, I'm your host, Dan Senor.