Israel Threatens to Derail US-Iran Nuclear Talks with Imminent Military Strike
As diplomatic backchannels attempt to revive a nuclear agreement between Tehran and Washington, Israel appears determined to sabotage any outcome that doesn’t involve the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. According to a New York Times report on 28 May, Tel Aviv is preparing for a possible military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, with little warning and no regard for ongoing Omani-mediated negotiations.
Citing officials briefed on the matter, the report claims Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is actively threatening to “upend the talks by striking Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities.”This warning comes as discussions between Iran and the US reportedly begin to yield progress, with Washington's envoy Steve Witkoff and Oman exploring creative compromises to salvage a diplomatic deal. One such proposal includes a multilateral joint venture to produce nuclear fuel involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states, with US participation.
But Israel’s posture signals something far more dangerous. The Zionist state is allegedly drawing up a range of military options—from targeted strikes to sustained bombardment—against Iranian sites, many of which are located in densely populated urban areas. This isn’t posturing; it’s an open threat to regional stability and an attempt to force the hand of a US administration now openly split on how to contain Iran.
While the media portrays Trump and Netanyahu as being at odds, with Trump favoring diplomacy and Netanyahu pushing for war, the reality is that both the US and Israel share the same long-term strategic goal: the complete dismantling of the Islamic Republic, a regime that opposes both American hegemony and Israeli expansionism. The alleged disagreement may very well be a psychological operation—a classic good cop, bad cop routine—designed to pressure Tehran into capitulating. By presenting Trump as the reasonable dealmaker and Netanyahu as the volatile aggressor, the US seeks to corner Iran into accepting American conditions, under the shadow of an imminent Israeli strike that would inevitably drag Washington into another Middle Eastern war.
US President Donald Trump reportedly held a tense phone call with Netanyahu recently. Trump, who has long favored hardline rhetoric against Iran, surprisingly emphasized the possibility of a diplomatic breakthrough, stating, “I want a diplomatic solution with the Iranians. I believe in my ability to make a good deal.” Netanyahu, for his part, did not deny that strike plans were in motion and argued to Trump that time was running out for Israel to act.
Behind closed doors, Washington understands the stakes. US intelligence doubts that a unilateral Israeli strike would achieve its objectives and fears it would drag the United States into a broader conflict. But Tel Aviv is banking on that very outcome: if Iran retaliates—and it will—Israel assumes Washington will have no choice but to join the fray.
And what of Tehran? The head of the IRGC, General Hossein Salami, made the Iranian position clear on Wednesday: “Our hands are on the trigger. We are waiting—if they make a mistake, they will face responses that will make them forget their past.” Iran is not bluffing. This is a red line.
Israel’s fear is that any deal—even an interim one—could allow Iran to retain enrichment capabilities. That’s why Netanyahu is moving to undermine the talks before they can bear fruit. Tel Aviv wants Iran’s uranium shipped abroad or blended down to unusable levels—an unrealistic demand that Tehran has rejected time and again. The Israeli leadership knows this and is using it as a pretext to justify military action.
The core question is not about uranium percentages or reactor locations. It’s about who gets to shape the regional order. Israel wants to maintain its nuclear monopoly in the region, while Iran insists on its right to peaceful nuclear energy and regional sovereignty. Caught in between are the Arab Gulf states, used as bargaining chips by Washington and Tel Aviv alike, and increasingly aware that escalation could spill into their territories.
This crisis is not accidental. It’s the product of deliberate policy choices by a government in Tel Aviv that views peace as a threat to its strategic dominance—and by American politicians too weak or too compromised to resist.
Once again, the region stands on the edge of war—not because diplomacy failed, but because diplomacy threatens the interests of those who thrive on perpetual conflict.
The coming days may well determine whether we see a new regional arrangement or a catastrophic military conflagration with consequences far beyond Iran or Israel.
—Kevork Almassian is a Syrian journalist, geopolitical analyst, and the founder of Syriana Analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment