In the absence of any direct and explicit statements from Israeli officials, US President Donald Trump has become the primary source of information on developments regarding Iran. His near-daily remarks provide a fairly continuous barometer for assessing the chances of reaching a new nuclear agreement with Tehran versus the possibility that Iran's nuclear program will be halted by military force.
In recent weeks, Trump has taken care to express cautious optimism about the prospects of reaching a deal. These comments seem to underlie reports of growing tensions between Washington and Jerusalem, given Israel's apparent preference for a military strike.
This preference stems from concerns that any agreement, based on the talks held so far, would be partial and insufficient. Such a deal would fail to address all of Israel's concerns: the nuclear project itself, alongside the production and spread of missiles and drones, and Iran's support for terrorism in the region.
In recent days, signs have mounted that Iran also rejects the American proposals, a development that caused alarm in Israel. It appears Iranian leaders believe they still have significant diplomatic maneuvering room before the situation tips into military confrontation.
Iran has also made a point of warning against the consequences of such a conflict. Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh stated that American bases in host countries would be targeted.
The US has several military installations in the region – most notably, the headquarters of the US Navy's Central Command in Bahrain and its main air base in Qatar – as well as a military presence in additional countries, including Israel, where THAAD missile defense batteries and radar systems are deployed.
This is not the first time Iran has attempted to deter attacks on its interests by threatening American troops. No US president wants to face images of flag-draped coffins carrying fallen soldiers who died on foreign soil in overseas wars.
Such scenes have played a central role in the US's near-systematic avoidance of military force in the region in recent years. They are likely to be at the heart of Washington's dilemma: whether to prevent an Israeli strike, join it, or stand aside and provide indirect support through intelligence, extraction, and air defense.
As of yesterday, the "Trump Index" tipped toward military action, without specifying who would carry it out. In a podcast interview with the New York Post, Trump said he was "less confident" in reaching a deal with Iran than he had been a few months ago.
Trump reiterated his familiar line that "it would be nice" to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons "without war, without people dying," but added that he sees less enthusiasm in Tehran for an agreement.
Some commentators interpret these remarks as an attempt to pressure Tehran as part of ongoing negotiations, ahead of the next round of talks set to take place this Sunday in Oman. These comments coincide with near-open reports in Israel about the Air Force's high readiness for a strike and the assertion that recent air raids in Yemen were preparations for "the real thing" in Iran.
Israel sees a rare opportunity – one that may not return – to strike Iran, based on the convergence of several factors:
The recent acceleration of uranium enrichment processes by Iran; the extensive damage to its strategic defense systems from Israeli Air Force strikes last year; the significant weakening of Hezbollah and Iran's other proxies, apart from the Houthis; and Trump's explicit pledge that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons under any circumstances, "under a deal or otherwise," in his words.
The issue of uranium enrichment is expected to provide Israel with broad international support in the event of a strike. According to the latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran now possesses 408.6 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent, enough material to produce approximately ten bombs.
Yesterday, the IAEA's Board of Governors discussed additional violations by Iran and the possibility of reimposing sanctions. Formally, Israel is not a party to these talks, but it has a keen interest in maintaining a strong international coalition against Iran as all options are on the table.
Those looking for more signs of what's to come can find them in warnings issued yesterday by the United Kingdom (regarding the risks to maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf) and the US (which is preparing to evacuate its embassy in Baghdad, and possibly other bases in the region). They can also be seen in the unusual silence of Israeli politicians, who typically comment on everything but are now imposing a media blackout on what is arguably the most critical issue.
In recent days, there has been heavy use of the Iranian nuclear threat as part of efforts to persuade ultra-Orthodox parties not to back the dissolution of the Knesset amid the ongoing draft law crisis. Some of these discussions included the disclosure of sensitive information to politicians and advisers without proper security clearance.
Ultimately, the decision is likely to fall on the Trump-Netanyahu axis. Netanyahu is also scheduled to attend his son's wedding this coming Monday. While recent reports have pointed to disagreements between the two leaders, it is not impossible that this is a smokescreen.
The Americans now see a broader regional opportunity that encompasses not only the Iranian issue, but also an end to the war in Gaza, the return of the hostages, and the advancement of their sweeping plan for a mega-regional deal that includes Israeli-Saudi normalization.
In Israel, there is a tendency to focus primarily on the advantages of striking Iran, while highlighting only the downsides of ending the war in Gaza.
As always, reality is more complex: a strike on Iran carries significant risks, and a deal in Gaza also has its merits – first and foremost, the hostages. In light of the cabinet's weakness, the tendency to sideline key stakeholders, and the extraordinary weight of the issues at hand, one can only hope that those left in the rooms where decisions are made are focused on substance, not protocol.
