Ahlulbayt News Agency: With the end of the first round of Iran-US talks in Muscat, which were described as “very good” by the US President Donald Trump, the Israeli lobby that is concerned about the outcomes of these talks is pushing to disrupt the process and block signing a deal Tel Aviv finds against its interests.
Despite the fact that the negotiations are limited to the nuclear talks, the hardliners in Tel Aviv are working to link other cases to text of any deal with Tehran. In this connection, the Israelis in recent days have increasingly pressed Washington to avoid an agreement with Tehran as long as all sticking points are not discussed and concluded.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office stated on Sunday that “the Prime Minister believes negotiations must include limiting ballistic missiles and ending support for the Iranian axis.” In similarly confrontational remarks, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar alleged that “the Iranian regime is striving to obtain nuclear weapons and is threatening regional security.” Sa’ar claimed that the long-range ballistic missiles Iran is seeking to produce endanger not only Israel but also European countries.
Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen asserted that “any agreement with the current Iranian government is worthless, and the only path is to change it.” Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Israeli regime’s Internal Security Minister, also claimed in a statement: “Israel will never accept a nuclear Iran with ballistic missile capabilities.”
Upping level of the US demands on the negotiating table
Senior Tel Aviv officials are pursuing a calculated strategy of sustained pressure on Iran, aiming to secure fundamental concessions in ongoing diplomatic talks. Israeli leadership is actively working to expand Washington’s demands beyond the nuclear portfolio by framing Iran’s regional role as an overarching security threat.
Israelis believe that any agreement focusing solely on nuclear constraints would pose a severe risk to Tel Aviv. Consequently, Tel Aviv is pushing to place Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for regional resistance forces firmly on the negotiation agenda.
Analysts assess that Israel aims to leverage its political influence in Washington through this strategy, seeking ironclad guarantees for its security in any final deal. To reshape the negotiation framework, Tel Aviv is employing political pressure, intensive lobbying, and a relentless focus on the security ramifications of Iran’s capabilities.
Israeli officials have articulated maximalist demands, including a proposal to limit Iran’s missile range to 300 kilometers and to completely halt uranium enrichment, positions Tehran has consistently rejected. By setting what they know to be unacceptable terms, hardliners within the Israeli government may be attempting to scuttle the negotiations entirely, creating a pretext for more confrontational, potentially military, options.
While the US administrations have consistently prioritized Israeli security in their West Asia policy, Washington also pursues its own national interests. On the core objective of halting Iran’s nuclear program, the US and Israel remain aligned. However, their priorities currently diverge regarding the urgency of addressing Iran’s missile development and regional network of allies.
In this connection, Trump on Saturday in a response to a question about a deal that only covers the nuclear deal said: “Yes, that is acceptable. However, there is one point: it must be clear from the very beginning that there will be no nuclear weapons involved.”
It seems that Trump administration at present finds a deal with Iran the best option and so it does not intend to enter challenging issues that can complicate the negotiations or halt them.
Given the divergence in priorities between Israel and the US, the question arises as to whether the Israelis can sway Washington’s stance and prevent the signing of any potential agreement with Tehran.
Hebrew-language media and defense analysts emphasize that these negotiations could weaken the Israeli regime’s security position against Iran, as the dialogue process is likely to reduce regional tensions, a development Tel Aviv views as contrary to its interests.
To this end, Hebrew media believe that Netanyahu has advanced his meeting with Trump to discuss how to counter these negotiations and align the positions of both sides, a move that observers say stems from Tel Aviv’s serious concerns about the talks being limited solely to the nuclear issue.
Israel’s Walla news reported in this regard that during Netanyahu’s visit to the US, he has prepared an alternative plan to counter Iran. According to the report, Netanyahu is well aware that Trump is vulnerable to pressure from the hardline Democratic faction and therefore intends to leverage pro-Israel Democratic representatives in the Senate to pressure Trump and prevent any potential hesitation or retreat from military action against Tehran.
The Hebrew-language website reports that Tel Aviv currently has two options before it: the first is a “safe haven agreement,” which would prevent an Israeli attack on Iran following a potential US-Iran deal; and the second is an “open agreement,” which would allow Israel to take military action to eliminate threats and protect its security interests, similar to the US arrangement with Yemen’s Ansarullah movement, which managed hostilities while ensuring the Israeli military’s freedom to strike.
Israeli observers state that Netanyahu favors the second option, a choice that could lead to the destruction of significant portions of Iran’s nuclear and missile projects and even increase pressure for regime change in Iran.
Analysts believe the Israeli regime’s success in preventing any potential agreement depends on multiple factors, including Iran’s red lines, the American political landscape, European pressures, and regional developments, not merely Israel’s own stance.
Is Israel capable of attacking Iran?
The experience of pre-war negotiations during the 12-day conflict showed that Israeli officials were able to easily convince the Trump administration to take action against Iran’s nuclear and military facilities. Now, the Netanyahu government, given the hardline stance of some Washington policymakers toward the Islamic Republic and the US military’s posture in West Asia, is optimistic about its ability to persuade the Americans once again.
However, an examination of statements from White House officials indicates that Washington still views diplomatic resolution as its preferred option and, due to the heavy costs involved, is reluctant to resort to military means. Despite this, American military movements in West Asia suggest that in the event of a breakdown in negotiations, the possibility of conflict cannot be entirely ruled out.
Even if Tehran and Washington reach an agreement solely on the nuclear issue, the possibility of the Israelis once again resorting to military adventurism cannot be ignored, a point underscored by recent statements from Tel Aviv officials. As Netanyahu told Steve Witkoff, the US envoy to the Middle East: “If the issue of Iran’s ballistic missiles is not resolved in negotiations, Israel will take action against it itself.”
Despite the threats from Tel Aviv’s leadership regarding an attack on Iran, the reality within Israeli society paints a different picture. Following the test of the Khoramshahr-4 ballistic missile just recently, Israeli media have expressed concern about the consequences of any potential future conflict. Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s cabinet, which has prioritized weakening Iran’s missile capabilities, is well aware of the heavy costs that would accompany a confrontation with a country armed with powerful missiles, and during the 12-day war, they only experienced a fraction of the might of these military achievements.
Therefore, military analysts believe that any direct attack on Iran would carry extremely heavy and costly consequences for Israel, and without full US support, Tel Aviv would not have the capability or willingness to independently carry out a large-scale military operation against Iran. Some assessments even suggest that the US government has expressed concern over Netanyahu’s aggressive approaches and proposals and may take steps to contain and limit his hardline positions.
Even if Tel Aviv intends to strike parts of Iranian sites, any hostility can fast spiral into a large-scale regional dispute given Iran’s missile capabilities and high strength of Tehran-aligned resistance groups in the region.
So, observers believe that though there is a possibility of a military action, any practical move requires proper political conditions, American support, and precise evaluation of regional consequences. So, the possibility that Tel Aviv will wage a full-scale war with Iran without such support is just a naïve media speculation.
/129
Your Comment