Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is traveling to Washington this week an urgent meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House, amid a sense in Jerusalem that this is an exceptional moment.
From Netanyahu's perspective, this is a rare window in which the US may be prepared to consider military action to undermine the Iranian regime. That assessment rests on Trump's public support for protesters in Iran, his hardline stance toward the leadership in Tehran, and above all his stated willingness, in principle, to use the substantial military force the US has concentrated in the Gulf region.
At the same time, Netanyahu is deeply concerned that precisely at this historic juncture, Trump may choose to retreat from the tough posture that characterized the early part of his presidency. The fear in Jerusalem is that, seeking to avoid a prolonged conflict without a clearly defined endgame, Trump could opt for negotiations with Iran limited solely to the nuclear issue.
Such a move, Israeli officials worry, could lead to a narrow agreement that abandons other key demands, first and foremost a dramatic curtailment of Iran's missile program and an end to its support for proxy organizations across the Middle East.
These concerns have intensified following recent statements by President Trump in which he emphasized primarily the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, without mentioning the missile issue or Iran's regional entrenchment.
The gap between the approaches is reflected in differing definitions of what constitutes a "good deal." From the perspective of officials in the US who favor a diplomatic solution, a good agreement could be one in which uranium enrichment does not resume at near military threshold levels, or is conducted within a regional consortium, an idea raised in the past. The June war expanded Washington's room for maneuver, since in practical terms there is currently no enrichment activity in Iran.
For hawkish figures in both the US and Israel, by contrast, a good agreement is one that addresses all four core issues: the nuclear program, Iran's proxy network, its missile arsenal, and changes in the regime's conduct toward protesters. In practice, given the positions of the ayatollahs' regime, that would mean continued tension without an agreement, even at the cost of escalation, and without the catharsis of an immediate military confrontation.
From Netanyahu's standpoint, the two preferred options are either the military defeat of Iran through American force, or what he sees as a conceptual defeat, namely an agreement so comprehensive that it effectively dismantles the regime's ability to defend itself. The worst-case scenario for him is a narrow nuclear deal in which the US settles for restrictions on enrichment alone. Such an agreement, in Israel's view, would strengthen the current regime, isolate Israel, leave the missile and proxy issues unresolved, and most critically deprive Israel of the option to strike Iran in the future.
For Netanyahu, this is a decisive meeting. If the US signs a new nuclear agreement with Iran, it is clear that unlike during the Obama administration, Israel would have no real ability to undermine it, neither now nor later. Moreover, there is concern that Washington would treat such an agreement as closing the Iranian file and shift its focus to other fronts, leaving Israel to contend on its own with Iran's continued buildup of conventional power.
In his meeting, Netanyahu is expected to try to convince President Trump that, given Iran's current relative weakness and the concentration of American forces in the region, this is a historic opportunity to undermine the regime in Tehran, or at the very least to compel it to accept concessions far broader than those discussed in the past, rather than settling for narrow nuclear constraints.
At the same time, the visit comes against a backdrop of growing criticism that Israel is pushing the US toward a military confrontation. Netanyahu will therefore have to walk a fine line: voicing support for a tough US approach toward Iran without appearing to be dragging Washington into war. He may also stress that Israel would stand alongside the US should the president decide on military action.
Ultimately, Netanyahu's hurried trip to Washington underscores the importance he attaches to the current moment, with an emphasis on what he sees as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the American administration to lead a move to undermine the Iranian regime, alongside a deep fear that the president may instead prefer a limited nuclear deal that Israel regards as strategically damaging.
