Aside from Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, there is hardly anyone in Washington who still believes a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is achievable. In fact, even the two men themselves are likely unconvinced that an agreement is possible. Yet they are "trying to deliver an achievement," as one Washington-based source familiar with the matter put it.
Witkoff's recent remarks about President Donald Trump's frustration with Iran, saying the president "is curious why they haven't surrendered," were not particularly helpful. The comments portrayed both the senior envoy and his principal as being outmaneuvered by seasoned negotiators. Witkoff would have been better served by phrasing his thoughts differently.
Still, both that statement and Witkoff's warning that Iran is just a week away from enriching uranium for a dirty bomb help the administration build legitimacy for potential action. It is worth recalling that Witkoff made similar remarks on June 11, 2025. A day later, Operation Rising Lion was launched.
No one knows whether or how imminent military action may be this time, potentially led by the US. However, according to a source familiar with the details, the US military reported last Thursday that operational preparations had not yet been completed. In other words, the intense anxiety Israelis have experienced over the past month may, for now, have been premature.
Differences in mentality between Israelis and Americans play a central role here. In the US, preparations are orderly, plans are meticulous and action proceeds step by step. In Israel, planning is thorough but leaves room for improvisation, based on the understanding that every plan is subject to change.
Either way, events appear to be converging toward the possibility that sooner or later, Trump will order a strike on Iran. Under the circumstances, he may see little alternative. A massive military deployment of the kind he has positioned around Iran cannot easily be folded, especially with the suffering Iranian people in full view.
In 2009, President Barack Obama stood aside as protests erupted against Iran's regime. Trump, who has consistently taken a harder line against the ayatollahs, has promised that "help is on the way." Will he now retreat? Will he abandon Iranian demonstrators? Will he appear weaker than President Joe Biden, who withdrew from Afghanistan, or President Obama, who failed to enforce his own red line against Syrian President Bashar Assad?
The answer to those questions is no.
So why has he not acted already? There are operational considerations, as well as the need to consolidate legitimacy. Weather conditions and other operational factors unknown to the public may also be affecting the timetable. But the issue is not whether a strike will occur, it is when.
From the American perspective, China is the primary rival, while Iran is the lesser problem. Some in Washington therefore prefer to set aside the Iranian threat and focus on the challenge posed by Beijing. That view is understandable, but Israel's experience suggests otherwise.
Until October 7, Iran was considered Israel's principal enemy, while Hamas and Hezbollah, both US-designated terrorist organizations, were seen as secondary adversaries. The massacre demonstrated that even a "minor enemy" can be deadly, and that confronting it does not necessarily prevent a broader war, it may actually trigger one. Ultimately, Israel found itself fighting the entire Iranian axis.
Containing a "small enemy" risks allowing it to grow into a much greater threat. Moreover, such restraint does not prevent confrontation with larger rivals waiting in the wings, as Israel learned in its struggle against the Iranian axis.
By contrast, removing a threat while it is still limited can prevent it from evolving into something far more lethal and can reduce the overall scope of the conflict. In this case, such a move would also send a powerful deterrent message to other actors in the international system.
In other words, dismantling the Iranian regime, which spreads terrorism around the globe, is a clear US interest, both in the immediate and the long term. As Winston Churchill famously said, those who choose dishonor will have dishonor and war. Conversely, those who opt for a limited confrontation now may avert a far broader war in the future and spare their nation, and themselves, humiliation.
