Trump's Iran Discussions Cause Israel Concern Over Potential Surrounding Limitations
U.S.-Iran Nuclear Negotiations Position Israel in a Precarious Security Dilemma
Amid ongoing negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, Israel faces a dilemma revolving around the potential for a nuclear-armed Iran, the most pressing national security issue. This predicament stems from Israel's efforts to toughen the U.S.'s negotiating position and preserve the option for a military strike against Iran's facilities, actions that have generated frustration at the White House.
President Trump stated on Wednesday that he had cautioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against taking actions, such as a military strike, that could impede the talks between the U.S. and Iran. According to Trump, such actions would be inappropriate as the two nations are nearing a solution.
Netanyahu, in public statements, has expressed Israel's apprehensions, maintaining that a poor agreement is worse than no agreement at all. The nuclear negotiations began on April 12, with the two sides meeting five times since, with the U.S. represented by Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Iran's team led by its foreign minister. However, the two sides remain deadlocked over the Trump team's insistence that Iran must forsake the ability to enrich uranium.
Trump has repeatedly declared his preference for a diplomatic resolution, but has made clear that military options will remain on the table if a deal cannot be reached. Although Trump has set a two-month time frame for negotiations to succeed, administration officials have played down the idea of a strict deadline.
Many in Israel worry that the Trump administration may not hold firm on its red line regarding enrichment, given its enthusiasm for reaching a deal. Trump himself has stated he has yet to decide on the matter. Witkoff stated before the talks began that the U.S. recognizes that both sides will need to make concessions for a deal.
"The fear is that due to Trump's eagerness to reach a deal, we may end up with an agreement that does not adhere to the zero enrichment principle," Avner Golov, a former senior director at Israel's National Security Council who is now with MIND Israel, a national security advisory group, expressed. European and former U.S. officials who have negotiated with Iran share similar skepticism, uncertain that the administration will secure a deal that does not grant Iran some uranium enrichment capacity.
Currently, the U.S. and Iran are working on a framework outlining the principles that would shape a potential deal. A senior U.S. official stated the U.S. is preparing to offer Iran a "term sheet" that would include an end to enrichment, asserting that should Iran refuse these terms, it would not mark a favorable day for them.
Israel has signaled its support for a deal that would terminate Iran's nuclear fuel enrichment program. Iran, however, has insisted on the ability to enrich uranium as a core demand for over two decades of nuclear negotiations. The nuclear deal signed by the Obama administration in 2015 allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium, but placed strict limitations on its nuclear activities for ten years, with the aim of keeping Tehran a minimum of one year away from amassing enough nuclear fuel for a bomb. Trump pulled out of the deal during his first term.
There is a broad consensus in Israel that the country must maintain the right to act autonomously regarding Iran, regardless of the outcome of the talks. Israel expanded its options last year by targeting Iranian ally Hezbollah in Lebanon and disabling several of Iran's air defenses during unprecedented direct exchanges of fire with the countries. These accomplishments would make it harder for Iran to defend against or respond to an attack.
Iran, however, has accelerated its progress toward the ability to produce a nuclear weapon. It has significantly increased its production of near weapons-grade enriched uranium, according to the United Nations' atomic agency, and is believed by the U.S. to be capable of producing a rudimentary bomb within a few months. Iran has built tunnels deep under its main Nantaz enrichment site, with work on the project still in progress but eventually allowing Iran to produce fuel for nuclear weapons out of reach of airstrikes and resume its nuclear program in the wake of an attack. These efforts could make an attack more attractive, even if the nuclear talks are dragging on.
Some in Israel advocate for an immediate attack on Iran's nuclear program without U.S. support, while the window of opportunity remains open. However, such action could alienate Israel's key ally and be less effective or difficult to execute without American military assistance, including crucial American aid in fending off any large-scale Iranian military response to an Israeli attack.
"Israel will not opt for a military option without American agreement," said Raz Zimmt, a senior researcher at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies. "Therefore, there is concern both that the agreement will not be good enough and that we will miss another opportunity to address the nuclear issue more thoroughly."
Washington's aim is to forge a deal framework that would alleviate such concerns and discourage Israel from taking immediate military action against Iran. No one in the Trump administration has the patience for years of drawn-out negotiations, particularly with the risk of Israeli strikes on Iran.
Israel had originally planned a strike on Iran this year but put it on hold after a request by the Trump administration to allow for negotiations, according to a person familiar with Israel's planning. Any military strike would likely only delay Iran's fortified and extensive nuclear program, requiring a sustained effort and multiple rounds of fighting before either the regime agrees to give up its nuclear program or is toppled.
Western and Israeli officials have stated that military action could set back Iran's nuclear program at least a year, but there is considerable uncertainty over the impact an Israeli attack would have on Iran's program, including its enrichment sites and stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
The debate is reaching a climax as U.S.-Israeli relations have been strained over Israel's handling of the war in Gaza and U.S. decisions that have taken Israel by surprise.
While the alliance remains strong, Trump recently skipped Israel on his swing through the Persian Gulf in May, reached a cease-fire deal with Yemen's Houthi militant group even as it continues to fire missiles at Israel, and negotiated with Hamas to secure the release of the last living American hostage held in Gaza while many Israeli captives continue to be held.
- The nuclear negotiations between the U.S. and Iran have placed Israel in a precarious situation, as they struggle to preserve the option for a military strike against Iran's facilities while also pushing the U.S. to toughen its negotiating position.
- The fear in Israel is that a weak agreement that allows for some uranium enrichment by Iran could potentially threaten its national security and strategic interests in the Middle East.
- Many in Israel advocate for a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear issue, but worry that the Trump administration may compromise on the zero enrichment principle, leading to a policy that is politically unsatisfactory for Israel.
- There is a possibility that Israel may feel compelled to take military action against Iran's nuclear program if a diplomatic solution seems impossible or inadequate, as some fear that a prolonged negotiation process could weaken Iran's defenses and increase the likelihood of a successful military strike.
