Both U.S. and Iranian officials have issued reports of good progress from a second round of talks held in Oman’s embassy in Rome over the weekend, in an effort to reach a new agreement to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat. In response, Israel and its friends have expressed growing concern that Trump and his chief negotiator, Steve Witkoff, could fall into the same negotiating trap that led to the deeply flawed 2015 Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated and rammed through Congress by the Obama administration.
Until Trump made his surprise announcement on April 7 that direct talks with Iran would begin, Israel’s military and political leaders had believed that a joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program was imminent. But with negotiations on a new Iran nuclear deal now in progress, that prospect has been delayed indefinitely.
During Trump’s public comments last week in the Oval Office as he was meeting with Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Trump insisted, “I wouldn’t say [I] waved off” any thought of attacking Iran. But he did say, “I’m not in a rush to do it because I think that Iran has a chance of being “a great country and to live happily without death. That’s my first solution. If there’s a second [military] option, I think it would be very bad for Iran. And I think Iran wants to talk.”
A deliberately indirect Israeli response to that comment came in the form of a statement issued by Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu’s office later that day. It noted that, “for over a decade, [the prime minister] has led the global campaign against Iran’s nuclear program, even when the threat was belittled and labelled ‘political spin,’ and the prime minister was called ‘paranoid.’” It was only due to “countless overt and covert operations” led by Netanyahu, the statement said, “that Iran does not currently possess a nuclear arsenal.”
Meanwhile, the State Department confirmed that in their latest meeting on April 19, the U.S. and Iranian negotiators sat in separate rooms at the Omani embassy in Rome as Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi passed messages between them, in the highest-level diplomatic contacts between the U.S. and Iran since the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was concluded.
The U.S. and Iran severed diplomatic relations in 1980 after radical Iranian students, with their government’s permission, surrounded and held hostage 52 staff members of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for more than a year. Iran has also been on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984.
The U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations are scheduled to continue with another weekend meeting to be held in Oman, along with a side discussion of “technical details” to establish a framework for the talks, according to Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, speaking on Iranian television.
A senior Trump administration official also confirmed that “Today, in Rome, over four hours in our second round of talks, we made very good progress in our direct and indirect discussions.”
TRUMP HAS ALWAYS SAID HE WOULD PREFER A DEAL WITH IRAN
President Donald Trump has often said that he will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, through diplomacy if possible, but by use of force if necessary. Trump has long been critical of the 2015 nuclear deal that the Obama administration negotiated with Iran, going all the way back to his first run for the presidency in 2016. He still insists that Iran will have to give up its ambitions to become a nuclear power if it wants relief from the “maximum pressure” U.S. economic sanctions that Trump imposed on Iran in 2018, after it refused to agree to any of the revisions that Trump was demanding during his first term as president.
An ambiguous comment from Trump’s chief Middle East negotiator, Steve Witkoff, who is leading the U.S. side in the talks with Iran, magnified Israel’s concerns about the current negotiations.
Two days after the first round of talks took place in the Omani capital city of Muscat on April 12, Witkoff seemed to imply that the Trump administration would agree to permit Iran to maintain a stockpile of low-enriched uranium suitable for fueling civilian power reactors. Iran would only be forced to give up its stockpile of 60% enriched near-bomb-grade uranium, which is now sufficient to build half a dozen or more nuclear weapons in a matter of a few weeks.
U.S. NEGOTIATING POSITION REMAINS UNCLEAR
Witkoff told Fox News commentator Sean Hannity that the Iranians “do not need to run … a civil nuclear program where they enrich beyond 3.67 percent.” Witkoff also said that there would be verification that Iran was living up to its end of the new nuclear deal, and described the initial negotiating meeting as “positive, constructive, compelling.”
However, 3.67 percent is the same enrichment level that was permitted Iran under the 2015 agreement with the Obama administration. As a Wall Street Journal editorial pointed out, even though the 3.67% enrichment level may sound low, it is two-thirds of the way to enriching nuclear fuel to weapons grade. With its more enhanced uranium centrifuges, Iran has been able to keep enriching its uranium in large quantities to the much more dangerous 60% level, just one enrichment step below 90% bomb-level purity.
The editorial also blasted Trump negotiator Witkoff for his blunder by seeming to offer Iran a significant uranium enrichment concession even before serious negotiations had begun. The editorial also agreed with Netanyahu that Iran’s “long history of lying about its nuclear plans and facilities makes trust in its promises impossible. If Iran is really willing to abandon its nuclear program, it must be willing to give up uranium enrichment [entirely].”
The other provisions of the 2015 nuclear deal called for Iran to transfer its existing stockpiles of enriched uranium to Russia, and the placement of monitoring cameras in all of Iran’s declared nuclear sites, as well as in-person inspections by members of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The immediate firestorm of public criticism from friends of Israel forced Witkoff to walk back his statement. In a social media post the very next day, he stated that, “In any final arrangement” with the U.S., Iran “must set a framework for peace, stability, and prosperity in the Middle East — meaning that Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.” However, even that still leaves far too much wiggle room for Iran in the negotiations for the comfort of Israel’s leaders and friends.
According to the Jerusalem Post, Israel’s greatest fear is that neither Trump nor his chief negotiator and golfing buddy, Steve Witkoff, who is still a relative novice in the art of diplomacy “completely understand the importance of the details regarding setting back Iran’s nuclear program in the area of uranium enrichment, including advanced centrifuges, as well as regarding ballistic missile systems, which could be used to deliver nuclear warheads” in another long range Iranian attack on Israel.
ISRAEL’S PERSUASIVE MOSSAD LEADERS
Trump had sent CIA director John Ratcliffe to meet with his Israeli counterpart, David Barnea, the head of the Mossad. According to a Jerusalem Post report, Barnea proved to be successful in explaining to Ratcliffe Israel’s concerns about the dangerous implications of permitting Iran to continue with any level of uranium enrichment, and the importance of also regulating the development of Iran’s long-range ballistic missiles whose primary strategic use is as the most effective delivery system for nuclear weapons.
Barnea also had a strong relationship with Ratcliffe’s predecessor at the CIA, Bill Burns, and was credited with convincing Burns of the need for the Biden administration to take a much tougher stand in its negotiations to revive the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump had walked away from during his first term as president in 2018.
The Jerusalem Post story also recalled an incident in April 2021, just three months after Joe Biden took office, when the president and was looking to cut a quick agreement to revive the nuclear deal with Iran on the same dangerously lax terms that President Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry, had agreed to in 2015.
The situation was particularly difficult because, at the time, Biden was refusing to meet personally with Prime Minister Netanyahu. However, Israeli officials were able to arrange an unscheduled meeting between Biden and Barnea’s predecessor as head of the Mossad, Yossi Cohen, at which Cohen shared secret information on how Iran’s nuclear program was taking advantage of the security holes in the 2015 deal. As a result, the Biden administration took a much stronger position than expected against Iran’s desire to start using a new generation of uranium enrichment centrifuges, which ultimately led to the collapse of the negotiations to revive the 2015 deal at that time.
ISRAELI OFFICIALS “INTERCEPTED” WITKOFF ON HIS WAY TO ROME
But even though current CIA Director Radcliffe was on the same page as Israel on the Iran negotiations after having been briefed by Mossad head Barnea, Israel’s leaders realized that they also had to convince Trump’s envoy Witkoff, because he would be the one leading the U.S. side of the negotiations on April 19 in Rome.
Therefore, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer and Barnea came up with a bold plan to “intercept” Witkoff and secretly meet with him in Paris the day before the negotiating session in Rome in order to explain their concerns to him. But the fact that Iran came out of that second meeting with Witkoff in Rome with such an optimistic attitude and was quick to schedule a third round of talks for the next weekend indicates that the meeting with Barnea and Dermer failed to convince Witkoff that a much tougher and clearer U.S. negotiating position was needed for a satisfactory new nuclear deal with Iran to emerge.
Negotiations fell through, ending the chance for a deal while relatively moderate Hassan Rouhani was still Iran’s president, and with the election of his successor, hardliner Ebrahim Raisi, real negotiations were delayed into 2022, apparently to discuss the possibility of their cooperation in joint covert options for dealing with the Iranian threat, as the two spy agencies have done in the past, as well as ways to tighten the enforcement of existing U.S. sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and other segments of its economy which had become lax during the Biden administration.
TRUMP CAUGHT NETANYAHU BY SURPRISE IN THE OVAL OFFICE
After threatening for many months to bomb Iran into submission unless it agreed to give up its nuclear program, Trump’s sudden announcement of a new round of U.S.-Iran negotiations with Iran sponsored by Oman, during Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House on April 7, apparently caught Netanyahu by surprise.
The New York Times reported that in his private discussion with Netanyahu at the White House that day, Trump made it clear that he would not provide American military support for an Israeli attack, which was tentatively planned for May, while the negotiations with Iran would still be playing out.
But the very next day, Trump declared in public comments that an Israeli military strike against Iran remained a real option. “If it requires military, we’re going to have military,” Trump said, and then added, “Israel will, obviously, be the leader of that.”
When Netanyahu’s White House visit, the second since Trump took office, was initially announced on very short notice, it was believed to have been prompted by Trump’s declaration that he was imposing a 17% “reciprocal” tariff on all Israeli exports to the United States. When Netanyahu called Trump on April 3 to set up his visit to the White House, he also wanted to talk about Iran, but Trump waved him off by saying that he didn’t want to discuss it over the phone.
IRAN SENT MIXED SIGNALS ABOUT AGREEING TO TALKS
There had been no expectation of any new moves regarding Iran after its president, Masoud Pezeshkian, publicly announced that his government had rejected a letter from Trump to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proposing direct negotiations over the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program.
In response to that rejection, the State Department had reiterated Trump’s insistence that “the United States cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.”
“The president expressed his willingness to discuss a deal with Iran,” the State Department statement added. “If the Iranian regime does not want a deal, the president is clear: he will pursue other options, which will be very bad for Iran.”
Trump did drop a subtle hint when he told reporters during a flight back to Washington from his home in Florida that, “We’ll see if we can get something done [with Iran], and if not, it’s going to be a bad situation.
“I would prefer a deal to the other alternative, which I think everybody in this plane knows what that is, and that’s never going to be pretty,” Trump added.
The belligerent tone of these comments only added to the surprise when Trump announced the new round of negotiations with Iran just a week later. Trump was responding to a private letter that had been sent by a senior Iranian official on March 28, indicating that the Tehran regime did want indirect talks with the U.S. after all, despite what its president had said.
Sitting next to Netanyahu in the Oval Office, Trump told reporters, “We’re having direct talks with Iran, and they’ve started. It’ll go on Saturday. We have a very big meeting, and we’ll see what can happen.” But Trump also warned that the Tehran regime would be “in great danger” if the talks collapse.”
Trump indicated that he is expecting quick results from these negotiations and will resort to military force, probably in conjunction with Israel, if the new talks with Iran fail to show rapid progress.
IRAN’S MADDENING NEGOTIATING STRATEGY
However, the Iranians became notorious over the past two decades for their ability to drag out negotiations over their nuclear program while maintaining their maximum demands and refusing to make any meaningful concessions, eventually wearing down their negotiating partners, instead of being dismantled. That is what led to the weak nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was finalized between Iran and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the U.S., China, France, Russia, Great Britain) plus Germany in Vienna on July 2015.
When the negotiations for the JCPOA began in November 2013, the U.S. was demanding that Iran’s nuclear program be effectively dismantled. But by the time it was finalized, the Obama administration had given in to Iran’s demands that it remain capable of building a nuclear weapon when the deal’s limitations on its nuclear program were set to expire over the next decade or so, which is about now.
Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel’s friends in Washington reacted in 2015 by waging a vigorous but ultimately losing campaign to persuade Congress to reject the nuclear deal. That is why there is some fear that the new negotiations between the Trump administration and Iran could lead to an even more unsatisfactory outcome, given the substantial progress Iran has made since then towards crossing the nuclear weapons threshold.
U.N. NUCLEAR MONITOR WARNS THAT TIME FOR A DEAL IS RUNNING OUT
Rafael Grossi, the head of the U.N.’s IAEA, which has been trying, with limited success, to monitor Iran’s compliance with the nuclear restrictions in the 2015 deal, warned last week that Iran was “not far” from developing a nuclear weapon, as tensions between Iran and Israel continue to grow, and Iran feels increasingly vulnerable to attack.
“It’s like a puzzle. They have the pieces [needed to make a nuclear bomb], and one day they could eventually put them together,” Grossi told the Le Monde French newspaper after his latest visit to Iran. “There’s still a way to go before they get there. But they’re not far off, that has to be acknowledged.”
While he was still in Iran, Grossi said about the new round of talks between the U.S. and Iran, “We all know it’s not an easy process. We know we are in a very crucial stage of these negotiations. We [also] know we don’t have much time [to reach a new agreement].”
While Netanyahu had little to add when Trump made the surprise announcement of the new talks in his presence at the White House on April 7, the prime minister did say, “If it can be done diplomatically … I think that would be a good thing. But whatever happens, we must make sure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons.”
NETANYAHU CALLS FOR IRAN TO FOLLOW THE LIBYAN MODEL
Netanyahu then said that he would go along with a diplomatic solution to the problem “only if this agreement is a Libya-style [nuclear disarmament] agreement; that they go in, blow up the facilities, dismantle all the equipment, under American supervision and American execution — that’s good.”
Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi volunteered to dismantle his nuclear weapons program in 2003. After he saw U.S. President George W. Bush launch an American attack on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq because it was believed to be developing weapons of mass destruction, Qaddafi was afraid that Libya would be the next target on Bush’s list.
Netanyahu also warned against “a second option, [in which a Libya-style agreement] won’t happen.” He predicted that Iran “will just drag out the talks, and then the option is [a joint U.S.-Israeli] military [attack on Iran to destroy its nuclear program]. Everyone understands that. [Trump and I] discussed that at length,” the Israeli prime minister said.
Trump has said he would have preferred face-to-face talks with Iran instead of indirect negotiations, because it would allow the sides to reach an agreement faster. But Tehran so far has refused.
Iran has also announced a set of “nine principles” that it will push for in the negotiations. They start with a flat rejection of Netanyahu’s demands for a Libyan-style total dismantlement of its nuclear program. Iran is also demanding “guarantees” that Trump or another future U.S. president won’t back out of a new nuclear deal with Iran, a total “removal of sanctions,” and “investment facilitation” to boost Iran’s economy.
Iranian officials also said they were hoping to get greater clarity on the U.S. position after articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post reported on a vigorous debate within the Trump administration over whether the U.S. military should go forward with Israel as soon as next month in a pre-emptive strike on Iran to take out its nuclear capabilities.
THE DEBATE OVER ATTACKING IRAN INSIDE THE TRUMP WHITE HOUSE
There are trusted advisors within President Trump’s inner circle, including his national security adviser Michael Waltz, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as General Michael Kurilla, the head of U.S. Central Command, who have been calling for military action as soon as possible to put an end to Iran’s nuclear threat before it becomes realized.
But other close Trump advisors, including Vice President JD Vance and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, at least for now, have persuaded him to give diplomacy one more chance to resolve the problem, and put off risking the start of an all-out war in the Middle East between the U.S. and its allies, including Israel, against Iran and its allies.
Shortly before Netanyahu’s visit, Trump resolved the dispute in favor of negotiations after Iran signaled that it was willing to engage in talks, despite its president’s public statement to the contrary. According to a New York Times article, there is now a “rough consensus” within the administration in favor of the current talks. But as indicated by Steve Witkoff’s ambiguous statements, it remains unclear exactly what kind of outcome Trump is seeking from the negotiations with Iran, and just how long he is prepared to wait for that outcome before turning to his military options.
ISRAEL HAS DEVELOPED TWO DIFFERENT IRAN ATTACK PLANS
According to the same Times article, Israeli officials had recently developed two separate sets of military plans to attack Iranian nuclear sites, with or without some level of direct U.S. military help.
It has long been known that Israel has been making plans for a pre-emptive military strike to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities for many years. In fact, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert approached U.S. President George W. Bush in May 2008 for U.S. support of an Israeli air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. But Olmert’s request was turned down by Bush over concerns about the likely Iranian retaliation against U.S. targets in the region, and doubts that a single raid by the limited number of Israeli aircraft capable of reaching Iran would be sufficient to eliminate its nuclear threat.
However, given the dramatic security developments across the region since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, Iran is now far more vulnerable to such an Israeli air strike, especially if the U.S. would be willing to contribute its unique military assets, which are already in the region, to the attack plan.
WHY IRAN IS NOW PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE
While Israel has yet to achieve its goal of totally eliminating Hamas military capabilities, the terrorists in Gaza no longer pose any serious threat of staging another invasion of Israel. Hezbollah has been similarly decimated and is being ousted from its bases in southern Lebanon, depriving Iran of what had been its most powerful non-state military ally in the region. The fall of the Assad regime in Syria has also deprived Iran of the land bridge it used to provide arms to Hezbollah and project Iran’s power across the region all the way to the Mediterranean coast.
Most important of all, with the help of the U.S. and its allies in the region, Israel has proven to be much less vulnerable to large-scale ballistic missile, cruise missile, and drone attacks launched from Iran than had been believed. Two such attacks launched by Iran last year, each involving hundreds of projectiles, did minimal damage to Israel. The Israeli retaliation to the second such attack proved to be devastating to Iran’s air defenses and missile production capabilities.
The second set of Israeli retaliatory air strikes last October systematically destroyed the Russian-made S-300 anti-aircraft systems that were in place across both Iran and Syria, leaving Iran’s above-ground nuclear facilities virtually defenseless from attack by the Israeli air force’s precision-guided bombs and air-to-ground missiles. That attack also destroyed the special equipment Iran had been using to make missile fuel, which will not be easy for Iran to replace. This has crippled Iran’s ability to produce its most advanced missiles for some time to come.
The goal of the Israeli attack proposals is to delay any effort by Iran to use its enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon by at least a year or more.
A SUCCESSFUL ATTACK IS NOT CERTAIN WITHOUT A LOT OF U.S. HELP
However, even if all of the above-surface Iranian nuclear targets are destroyed by Israeli air attacks, Iran would still be left in possession of its nuclear facilities buried deep underground, both at its Natanz uranium enrichment facility and especially at its formerly secret nuclear facility at Fordow. They were specifically designed to be impervious to Israeli air attacks.
This was where Israeli military planners were hoping for help from American B-2 heavy bombers, which are capable of carrying 30,000 lb. bunker-busting bombs too heavy for Israeli jets to carry, but powerful enough to reach and destroy targets buried deep underground.
It was therefore not considered coincidental that the U.S. Air Force recently transferred 6 of its 19 operational B-2 bombers from their permanent base in Missouri to a joint British-American air base on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, a relatively short flight from the likely nuclear targets in Iran.
The U.S. has also recently transferred to the Middle East waters a second aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson. It joins the USS Harry S. Truman, which has been launching air strikes on the Houthis in Yemen since March 15. Together, the planes from the two carriers and the missiles from their accompanying naval vessels would be capable of providing a great deal of support for any direct Israeli air attack on Iran.
On March 17, two days after the U.S. began its air campaign against the Houthis, President Trump warned Iran that it would also be held directly responsible for any more Houthi attacks using Iranian-supplied weapons. “Every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of Iran,” Trump wrote, adding, “Iran will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”
In addition, the Trump administration has also sent two more of its Patriot missile batteries and a second Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to the Middle East, to further bolster Israel’s defenses against another possible Iranian missile attack.
ISRAEL’S COMMANDO RAID OPTION
If the U.S. decided not to join Israel in directly attacking Iran’s underground nuclear facilities, the Israelis had developed another option involving Israeli commando raids against the underground Iranian targets to coincide with the air strikes.
The commando raids would be patterned after an operation Israel carried out last September in Syria, when Israeli commandos were flown by helicopter into Syria to destroy an underground bunker which was being used to build missiles for Hezbollah.
After Israeli airstrikes took out the Syrian guard posts and air defense sites, the commandos rappelled on ropes from the helicopters to the ground, infiltrated the underground facility, and placed explosives to destroy the equipment being used to make the weaponry for Hezbollah. The Israeli planners of the operation had also hoped that the U.S. would be willing to provide air cover for the Israeli commandos while they were on the ground.
One of the weaknesses of the Israeli plans is the likelihood that Iran has hidden much of its large stockpile of 60% highly enriched uranium in various well-hidden places around the country, where it would remain a threat even after the rest of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is destroyed.
NETANYAHU WANTED TO ATTACK IRAN MORE QUICKLY
According to the New York Times article, when Israeli military commanders informed Netanyahu that planning and training for the commando raids could not be completed before this coming October, he abandoned the idea and asked them to develop a substitute plan calling for an extended bombing campaign that would have required American assistance, but which could be implemented before the end of May. However, without the commando element, the air campaign would have to last more than a week to destroy all of its key Iranian targets.
According to the same article, American military experts have long been skeptical that Iran’s underground facilities could be destroyed from the air without the use of American bombers to drop the special 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs.
That specific issue was raised during a recent meeting in Washington between Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer and members of Trump’s national security team, headed by Waltz. Dermer argued that the “bunker buster” bombs dropped by the American B-2 bombers could easily reach and destroy the underground Iranian nuclear facilities. But Dermer and his fellow Israelis left the meeting disappointed and frustrated because Walz and his aides withheld their support for his request.
In addition, all of the Israeli attack plans would require some level of U.S. help to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation with another mass Iranian missile attack, if not to join in the attack on Iran itself. That, in turn, made the success of any such attack highly dependent upon President Trump’s approval and ongoing support, both militarily and diplomatically.
WHITE HOUSE AGREEMENT ON THE GOAL BUT NOT THE METHOD
All officials in both Israel and Washington seem to agree on the basic goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, but disagree on the best method to reach it. While negotiating anything with Iran’s Islamic leaders has always been a dubious proposition, the greater fear is that any attack which only sets back the Iranian nuclear program for a while, but fails to destroy it, could push Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to take the last step by authorizing the production of a nuclear weapon as soon as possible — likely in a matter of just a few weeks.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Netanyahu has always supported the military option of a preventive strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as his first choice, and has repeatedly warned U.S. presidents and the rest of the world that Iran’s leaders simply can’t be trusted, and will always find a way to get around any negotiated restrictions on their nuclear ambitions, as well as any verification safeguards.
IRAN NOW BELIEVES TRUMP IS WORKING FOR THEM
Meanwhile, Beni Sabti of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), an affiliate of Tel Aviv University, suggests that the divisions between the U.S. and Israel over their Iran strategy is an unexpected boon for the leaders in Tehran. They perceive that “the United States has become Iran’s advocate,” by blocking Israel’s attack plan for the time being when Iran is most vulnerable.
Sabti told a reporter for Maariv and the Jerusalem Post that, “For many weeks after Trump’s election, they felt fear. Prices rose, and there was psychological pressure on the regime. Now, the Iranians suddenly feel emboldened. And things aren’t as severe as they initially seemed.”
He also said that in Iran’s eyes, “it’s very important to highlight that the Trump administration is working for them, not against them.”
He notes that because “Trump doesn’t speak against the [Iranian] regime itself at all, they [the Iranians] feel empowered and believe they can move forward with very minimal concessions,” and that they “feel they have the upper hand in the current talks with the U.S.”
WHY TRUMP DECIDED ON TALKS INSTEAD OF AN ATTACK
According to the New York Times report, as the high-level debate over the Israeli attack plans within the Trump administration continued, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, presented a new intelligence assessment warning that Iran would be likely to respond by launching a much wider war using its worldwide terrorist proxies that Trump clearly does not want. Doubts about the prospects for the success of such an Israeli attack were also raised by other influential Trump advisors, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and White House chief of staff Susan Wiles. Even national security advisor Waltz, who had initially joined with Secretary of State Rubio in endorsing the Israeli attack plans, admitted that he was having serious doubts that such an attack could succeed without substantial U.S. military involvement.
Reportedly, Vice President Vance and the others who opposed an attack argued that with Iran already seriously weakened by the loss of its regional allies and air defenses, Trump had a unique opportunity to make a deal to eliminate its nuclear program on America’s terms. But if the new round of talks failed, Vance said, then they could all agree to go forward with one of the Israeli attack plans.
Trump was also getting hawkish advice on Iran policy from a variety of outside sources, including international conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch and pro-Israel Trump campaign donors such as Isaac “Ike” Perlmutter. He was also lobbied by conservative isolationists such as former Fox News personality Tucker Carlson, who strongly prefer negotiations with Iran instead of risking American involvement in a broader regional conflict.
Meanwhile, as the debate inside the Trump White House over whether the negotiations with the Iranians should continue, U.S. Central Command chief General Kurilla, during a personal visit to Israel at the beginning of April, quietly informed his Israeli counterparts that the White House wanted to put their attack plans against Iran on hold.
After Trump announced the talks with Iran on April 7, Brian Hughes, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council, claimed that the “entire national security leadership team” was united in its commitment to Trump’s Iran policy and efforts “to ensure peace and stability in the Middle East.”
“President Trump has been clear: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and all options remain on the table,” Hughes declared. “The president has authorized direct and indirect discussions with Iran to make this point clear. But he’s also made clear this cannot go on indefinitely,” he added, in an apparent response to fears that Iran would again try to drag out the negotiations.
WHAT DOES TRUMP REALLY WANT?
Meanwhile, depending on the day and the identity of the administration spokesman, there is a very real ambiguity about the nature of Trump’s demands on Iran’s nuclear program, or exactly what the consequences for Iran would be if they failed to meet them. It is still not clear whether Trump wants it eradicated completely or would be satisfied with Iran’s agreement to limit its nuclear program to civilian uses only, subject to strict and comprehensive outside verification.
Iranian officials have also taken note of the American media reports of divisions within the Trump administration over its goals and methods in dealing with Iran, and are now publicly asking for clarification.
“Given the contradictory positions we have heard from various American officials over the past few days, we expect the American side to first clear up the serious ambiguities that have arisen regarding its intentions. Maintaining Iran’s technical and nuclear achievements is a must in this process,” Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said on Iranian state television. “In return, of course, we expect that the illegal [U.S.] sanctions against Iran … must be lifted,” he added.
Baghaei also complained that “moving the goalposts [in the negotiations] constitutes a professional foul… in diplomacy. Any such shifting could simply risk any overtures falling apart. It could be perceived as a lack of seriousness, let alone good faith.”
He declared that any attempt to negotiate a Libyan-type settlement calling for the complete eradication of Iran’s nuclear program was “a non-starter.” He also rejected in advance any attempt by the U.S. to expand the scope of the talks to include any limitations on Iran’s ballistic missile program or its ongoing support for Islamic terrorist proxies throughout the region, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Shiite militias in Iraq.
Meanwhile, Iranian media reported that Ayatollah Khamenei met with visiting Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman to discuss the U.S.-Iran negotiations, and Foreign Minister Araghchi flew to Moscow to deliver a letter from Khamenei to Russian President Vladimir Putin and to consult with him on the nuclear talks with the U.S.
THE DANGERS OF A DIVIDED TRUMP WHITE HOUSE
Mark Dubowitz, who heads the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, warned of the danger of allowing policy debates within the White House, like the one over Iran, to break out into the open. He said that Iran “can exploit these different negotiating positions because they sense that there are people in the administration who really are desperate for a deal, and as soon as the [Iranian] regime smells desperation, they’re going to exploit it, as they’ve done many times before.”
On the other hand, Dubowitz notes that Iran is in its weakest economic and military position in decades, due largely to the Trump sanctions and the recent string of Israeli military successes against Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, as well as the collapse of its ally, Assad, in Syria. “It seems to me,” Dubowitz concludes, “that this is the maximum leverage we have ever had,” presenting Trump with the rare opportunity to push for the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.
NETANYAHU DESERVES MORE CREDIT FOR HIS CHURCHILL-LIKE COURAGE
Meanwhile, Edward Luttwak, writing in the Tablet, argues that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not getting the recognition that he deserves for his tenacious approach to fighting Israel’s enemies on all sides immediately following Hamas’ initial October 7 attack, and for standing up against the increasingly hostile moves by the President Biden and the officials in his administration that were intended to prevent Israel from achieving a true victory over its enemies and finally beginning to hold Iran accountable for its multi-front “Axis of Resistance” strategy to destroy Israel.
Luttwak compares Netanyahu’s ability to fend off tremendous political pressures from his domestic opponents, as well as the half-hearted support, liberally mixed with unfair criticism that he was getting from the Biden White House which emulate the leadership qualities that were demonstrated by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during the darkest days in June, 1940. Western Europe had just fallen to the Nazis, and England, which was being subjected to merciless bombing attacks by the Luftwaffe, was preparing to be invaded.
Yet Churchill remained firm and used his soaring “blood, sweat and tears” rhetoric to inspire the British people to fight on to the bitter end, in the hope that, with sufficient help from American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, they would be able to survive and ultimately emerge victorious over the Germans.
According to Luttwak, the October 7 Hamas attack was Prime Minister Netanyahu’s June 1940 moment. Very much like Churchill, a portrait of whom hangs prominently in the prime minister’s office, Netanyahu rose to the meet the challenge of the moment, and remained steadfast in his determination to have Israel fight on to victory despite also coming under attack by Hezbollah in the north, and the Houthis in Yemen to the south.
Also, very much like Churchill, Netanyahu is a very controversial leader who has remained under vicious attack from his domestic political enemies. Also, while fighting a war on several fronts at the same time, Netanyahu has had to overcome bitter criticism from liberal Democrat American antisemites and apologists for Hamas who want to cut off all crucial U.S. military aid to Israel.
Luttwack writes that, in addition, “Netanyahu faced a concerted campaign, directed from Washington, that brought together Israeli nonprofits and Netanyahu’s political opponents. Almost from the get-go, Netanyahu had to overcome calls and protests by well-educated — and some even well-meaning — Israelis and American Jews, as well as all the usual suspects in European capitals and almost every other world government incessantly demanding a ceasefire, not as a pause, but as an end to the war.” Such a ceasefire would have left Hamas in possession of its Israeli hostages and in a position to recover and ultimately attack Israel once again.
BIDEN INTERFERENCE AND CONSTANT CRITICISM
Netanyahu also faced “unremitting pressure from Washington. A mere few days after Oct. 7, the Biden administration intervened and made clear its opposition to an Israeli preemptive strike against Hezbollah — a position it would maintain over the next year.”
According to Luttwack, “The Biden administration displayed a similar hands-off attitude toward Iran’s proxy in Yemen [the Houthis].” Biden and his administration constantly criticized Israel’s battle plans against Hamas in Gaza for putting too many civilians at risk, when it was Hamas that was cynically using the civilians as human shields. Also, no matter how much humanitarian aid Israel permitted to enter Gaza while the fighting still raged, it was never enough to satisfy the armchair quarterbacks in the Biden White House.
Luttwack writes that, “It is against this backdrop that Netanyahu’s pure resolve must be understood. With this remarkable array of forces, external and internal, bearing down on him, his tenacity was the only thing that mattered.”
NETANYAHU’S STRATEGY HAS BEEN VINDICATED
A year and a half after the October 7 Hamas attack, Netanyahu’s strategy of accepting nothing less than a clear victory over the enemies who attacked Israel on two fronts has been vindicated in both Gaza and Lebanon. Almost 80% of the 251 hostages kidnapped on October 7 have returned home. Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” has been effectively neutralized, and Iran itself, including its nuclear program, lies open and uniquely vulnerable to Israeli attack.
Ironically, in July, 1945, just two months after Churchill’s courage was ultimately vindicated by the surrender of the defeated Nazis, the British electorate ousted him as prime minister. It is quite possible that after the war in Gaza is finally over, Netanyahu could suffer the same fate as Churchill at the hands of his domestic political enemies, as the Israeli people finally assign political responsibility to their leaders, whose negligence and overconfidence made the October 7 Hamas attack possible.
Yet that will not diminish the great benefits from Netanyahu’s extraordinary resilience and tenacity in leading Israel back from disaster to victory over its bitterest enemies, while, like Churchill, setting an example of courage for future leaders of his country to follow.
