Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been threatening to derail U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations by launching an attack on Iran’s primary uranium enrichment sites, according to a Wednesday report by the New York Times, citing officials familiar with the matter.
In April, Israel had planned a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities for May, but President Trump urged restraint in favor of pursuing a negotiated agreement with Tehran to limit its nuclear program. Trump’s decision followed months of internal debate in the administration over whether to back diplomatic efforts or support an Israeli military move aimed at delaying Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon—particularly as Iran faces significant military and economic setbacks.
Axios’ Barak Ravid reported Tuesday night, citing a White House official, that Trump warned Netanyahu in a phone call last week not to take any steps that could undermine ongoing negotiations between the U.S. and Iran over a new nuclear deal.
According to Ravid, Israel has been actively preparing to carry out a rapid strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities if U.S.-Iran nuclear talks collapse in the coming weeks. One source told Axios that Israeli officials believe their window for a successful operation may soon close, and consequently, some U.S. officials are concerned that Netanyahu might proceed with a strike even without Trump’s approval.
So, how are those talks going? Well, unless the two sides have been secretly reaching across the table and singing kumbaya, not so good.
Last month, Netanyahu asserted that the only “good deal” would be one that completely dismantles all of Iran’s extensive nuclear infrastructure—including sites buried beneath the desert in Natanz, deep within a mountain at Fordow, and at various other facilities dispersed throughout the country.
On Monday, Esmaeil Baqaei, the spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, ruled out the possibility of striking any interim agreement in the indirect negotiations with the US on Tehran’s “peaceful” nuclear program. According to Tasnim News, one of Iran’s plethora of official and semi-official news outlets, Baqaei also flatly denied “media stories about plans for a halt to uranium enrichment in Iran for up to three years.”
In an effort to prevent the negotiations from falling apart, President Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, along with Oman—serving as a mediator—explored creative solutions. One idea under discussion was the creation of a regional joint venture involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states, with potential U.S. participation, to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors. However, the location for the actual uranium enrichment remains undecided.
When asked about the Oman proposal, which is aimed at bridging the gap between Iran and the United States, Baqaei stated that Iran will unquestionably continue its uranium enrichment activities as a core component of its nuclear program.
Like I said, not so good.
Last October, Israel targeted and destroyed critical components of Iran’s strategic air defense system, which had been shielding the country’s nuclear sites. The operation has made it easier for Israeli aircraft to approach Iranian airspace without the immediate threat of being intercepted.
According to the New York Times, Netanyahu has contended that Iran’s current vulnerability is fleeting and that now is the optimal moment for a military strike. In contrast, Trump has argued that Iran’s weakened state presents an opportunity for negotiations to end its enrichment program—bolstered by the implicit threat of force should diplomacy fail.
During Thursday’s phone call, Trump emphasized to Netanyahu that the “other option” remains on the table, but made clear that he wants to first explore the possibility of a diplomatic resolution.
The disagreement between Trump and Netanyahu exposed divisions between traditionally hawkish American cabinet officials and other aides who are more skeptical that a military strike on Iran could effectively eliminate its nuclear ambitions without triggering a broader conflict. For now, it has led to a tentative consensus in the administration against military action.
