If all the current noise over Iran’s nuclear program sounds familiar — the US-Iran negotiations, reports of Israeli military preparedness, the friction between Washington and Jerusalem — that’s because it is.
An American president pursues diplomacy with Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fumes — sometimes publicly, other times privately — and threatens military action. And the two allies, despite shared strategic interests and rhetorical pledges of unbreakable bonds, drift toward a familiar point of open disagreement over how best to confront a common threat.
In the unfolding drama of US–Iran diplomacy, Israel again plays the role of anxious bystander — viewed by some as the actor that could gum up the works, but determined, or so it says, not to stand by while a dangerous deal is signed.
It happened under Barack Obama. It’s happening again under Donald Trump — a president Netanyahu only weeks ago called “a remarkable friend of the State of Israel,” but now finds himself at odds with over what the premier sees as his defining legacy issue: preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Deals with Iran having nuclear infrastructure intact is dangerous illusion
The core of the dispute is unchanged: Netanyahu’s conviction that any deal with Iran that leaves its nuclear infrastructure intact is a dangerous illusion, one that poses an existential threat to the Jewish state. Whether the American president is named Obama or Trump, Netanyahu’s deep skepticism endures — and so does the strategy that flows from it: confrontation, pressure, and the credible threat of military action.
Back in 2012, according to a book by journalist Ronen Bergman, Netanyahu’s repeated warnings of an imminent Israeli strike — coupled with covert operations and visible military drills — rattled the Obama administration into entering secret negotiations with Iran, fearing an Israeli move might spark a regional war. According to this telling, Netanyahu hoped his threats would stop a flawed deal. Instead, they helped accelerate one.
Fast-forward to 2025. The negotiations are back, so are Israel's deep misgivings and threats of military action. Various reports this week suggest Israel is again prepared to strike if diplomacy fails — or even if it succeeds, but yields an agreement Jerusalem deems inadequate. The Prime Minister’s Office flatly denied the second half of that equation, labeling a New York Times report to that effect on Tuesday as “fake news.”
Nevertheless, Mossad chief David Barnea and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer were in Washington this week for meetings with Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff and C.I.A. head John Ratcliffe, underscoring Israel's concerns, as once again the US is pursuing diplomacy at a time when Israel believes heavy pressure — and the real possibility of military pressure — should be applied.
The script is the same, but this time it’s Trump, not Obama, urging restraint. While that shift changes the dynamics — Netanyahu isn’t rallying Congress against a sitting president, as he did in 2015 — it does not change the fundamental tension.
Trump’s approach to Iran has always been transactional. He scrapped the Iranian nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), in 2018, reinstated sweeping sanctions, and called the deal a disaster. But now, in his second term, Trump sees an opportunity to claim a win: a deal tougher, smarter, and more effective than Obama’s.
Netanyahu, however, sees something different: a strategic opportunity to finish the job. Iran is reeling — its economy battered, its air defenses degraded, and its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria decimated.
Israeli officials believe pressure, if sustained, could force Iran into dismantling its nuclear infrastructure — as Libya once did. And if not, then now, they argue, is the moment to act militarily. That’s the heart of the clash.
Trump, despite his previous bashing of the deal Obama brokered, wants to avoid a military engagement. In phone calls and high-level meetings, the message to Jerusalem has been consistent: give diplomacy a chance, stay in sync with Washington, and don’t act unilaterally.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, during a visit to Jerusalem this week, delivered that message, telling Fox she was very “candid and direct” regarding what the US expected — diplomatic jargon for a tough conversation.
Trump has said the “other option” remains on the table. But he’s made it clear: he wants a deal — and he wants Netanyahu on board, or at least not a hurdle in the way.
Netanyahu views any agreement that allows Iran to enrich uranium — even at low levels — as a future gateway, not a barrier, to weapons-grade capability. He fears Iran is buying time, using talks to relieve pressure while continuing its nuclear work.
There’s also concern the US will accept an interim deal that leaves uranium stockpiles inside Iran and key facilities untouched — a framework eerily similar to the one reached in 2013 that led to the JCPOA.
Of course, there are key differences between now and then. The most important being the changing regional landscape.
When Obama struck the JCPOA, Iran’s regional presence was expanding and its footprint growing. Now, thanks to Israel’s battering of Iran’s proxies since October 7, that footprint is shrinking and the Islamic Republic is arguably at its most vulnerable than it has been since its 1979 founding.
For Israel, this is a rare opportunity to strike.
Trump sees the same vulnerability, but draws a different conclusion. For him, Iran’s weakness is leverage he can use in negotiating a “really great” deal.
Whether the two leaders can bridge that gap is unclear. US officials worry Netanyahu might move unilaterally. Israeli officials fear Trump might settle for a deal that leaves core threats in place. And hovering over it all is a familiar refrain: Netanyahu’s deep, abiding distrust — not only of Tehran, but of Washington’s judgment when it comes to Tehran, no matter who sits in the Oval Office.
