Israeli Leaders Privately Hope for Failure of Trump Negotiations With Iran

Officially, Israel’s position is that President Donald Trump could negotiate a “good” deal to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Unofficially, Israeli decision-makers believe U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, which are scheduled to begin on Saturday in Oman, will almost certainly end in either failure or disaster.

From Israel’s perspective, the best plausible outcome of the talks would be failure—the sooner the better. The disaster would be if Trump allowed Iran to drag out the talks indefinitely or agreed to a deal that allowed Iran to remain a nuclear threshold state.

“I don’t see a possibility that the Iranians will sincerely agree to get rid of their nuclear program,” a senior Israeli official told the Washington Free Beacon on condition of anonymity, referring to a condition set by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Trump administration for any deal. “I sincerely hope and pray—not just for Israel’s sake, but also for the sake of the world—that the Americans will quickly realize if they are being played by the Iranians and move to Plan B, which is the best response.”

The Trump administration has so far taken a tough line against Iran. Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Wednesday that if Iran does not agree to a deal on his timeline, “we’re going to have military” action. National security adviser Mike Waltz said on CBS News last month that any deal with Iran must involve complete dismantling of the regime’s nuclear program, including its uranium enrichment activities, weaponization efforts, and strategic missile development.

The Trump administration has backed up its threats with escalating sanctions on Iran and bolstered military capabilities. A second U.S. aircraft carrier arrived in the Middle East on Thursday, the military said, and the United States last Saturday delivered a second THAAD anti-missile defense battery to Israel, according to Hebrew and Arabic media. In March, the United States began ongoing airstrikes against the Iran-backed Houthi terrorist group in Yemen and deployed as many as six B-2 Spirit bombers, capable of carrying the heaviest bunker-busting bombs, to a military base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego, well within range of Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.

But Trump has also made clear that he seeks to avoid military conflict with Iran. In announcing Saturday’s talks, he said, “I think everybody agrees that doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious. And the obvious is not something that I want to be involved with or, frankly, that Israel wants to be involved with if they can avoid it.”

Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, who will lead the Iran talks, said in an interview with the Wall Street Journal published on Friday that he was open to compromise on the dismantlement of the regime’s nuclear program.

“I think our position begins with dismantlement of your program. That is our position today,” Witkoff said, summarizing his message to Iranian officials. “That doesn’t mean, by the way, that at the margin we’re not going to find other ways to find compromise between the two countries.”

Regarding Iran’s refusal to meet face-to-face as Trump has called for, Witkoff said he aimed to resolve the issue and build trust with the Iranian negotiating team, which will be headed by foreign minister Abbas Araghchi.

Yossi Kuperwasser, a retired Israeli brigadier general and former director general of Israel’s Strategic Affairs Ministry under Netanyahu, said that Iran will almost certainly not agree to dismantle its nuclear program. Kuperwasser said Iran, which has sworn to destroy Israel and aligned with America’s main adversaries, has far too much invested in the program, both ideologically and materially, to back down now.

“The regime can’t be seen to have caved in front of the United States,” said Kuperwasser, the head of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. “This would mean that they threw away billions and billions of dollars throughout the years. It would not be good for their image at all.”

Iran has long rejected demands that it completely dismantle its nuclear program, which the regime claims is for peaceful purposes and not aimed at producing a nuclear device. But Iran has lately ramped up enrichment of uranium to 60 percent purity, which has no application other than nuclear weapons, and has obstructed international inspections of its nuclear facilities. U.S. intelligence concluded earlier this year that Iran was exploring a faster, cruder route to a bomb, the New York Times reported, and experts have estimated that the regime has the capability to do so in a few months.

Netanyahu, historically a skeptic of diplomacy with Iran, has been careful to remain publicly aligned with Trump regarding the talks. On Tuesday, a day after Trump announced the talks alongside Netanyahu in the Oval Office, the prime minister noted in a video message from Washington, D.C., “We agree that Iran will not have nuclear weapons.”

“This can be done by agreement, but only if this agreement is Libyan style,” he continued, referring to the voluntary dismantlement of Libya’s nuclear weapons program starting in 2003. “They go in, blow up the installations, dismantle all of the equipment, under American supervision and carried out by America–this would be good.”

Days before Trump announced the Iran talks, however, a senior Israeli official told reporters traveling with Netanyahu to Hungary that Iran would not “realistically” agree to give up its nuclear program.

“We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons. Is there a way with talks? Maybe, I doubt it. It happened in Libya and Ukraine … I think it won’t happen, realistically,” the official said, according to Jewish Insider. “There is no point in having negotiations just to negotiate. It’s pointless to have these discussions.”

On a podcast last month, Netanyahu questioned how any agreement with Iran could be implemented and monitored.

“Who will verify [that the centrifuges are destroyed], and who will do it? Do you trust Iran to do it?” Netanyahu said to the host, Israeli political analyst and Hebrew University of Jerusalem historian Gadi Taub. “Apparently, such a thing happened in Libya. Fine. There are a variety of options. I won’t get into it. But I will say one thing. We are committed to doing everything, everything to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.”

An Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Free Beacon that there is “no daylight between our leaders on the need to prevent a nuclear Iran.” He called the dynamic a “refreshing change from the containment policy that was previously pushed” by former presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

“If the time-sensitive negotiations will result in the implementation of a Libya-type agreement—great,” the official said. “If not, the alternative is clear.”

Trump assured Netanyahu during their White House meeting that Iran would have no more than 60 days to agree to a deal, starting from Saturday, sources confirmed to the Free Beacon.

But other current and former Israeli officials acknowledged concerns about the U.S.-Iran talks. Kobi Michael, a retired military intelligence officer and former deputy director general of Israel’s Strategic Affairs Ministry under Netanyahu, said Israel was “beginning to doubt Trump’s determination vis a vis Iran.”

“I don’t think prime minister Netanyahu believes that negotiations with Iran can lead to a successful agreement that will prevent Iran from advancing its military nuclear capabilities,” Michael, a researcher at Israel’s Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy and Institute for National Security Strategy, told the Free Beacon. “At the same time, I think the prime minister is very concerned about the skillful negotiating capabilities of Iran and the possibility that Israel might find itself in a dangerous strategic stalemate with regard to Iran’s military nuclear capabilities.”

The senior Israeli official said that while he “can’t be confident” the Trump administration will realize the futility of diplomacy and opt for a strike on Iran—he was “hopeful.” He said it was “logical” for the administration to engage in the talks before resorting to military force.

“The Americans have shown seriousness in their approach. That’s why the Iranians are scared, and that’s what brought them to seek negotiations,” the official said. “I think the American administration, and certainly the American president, will want to either have a good deal or to show the Iranians—and not just the Iranians, by the way—that you don’t mess with the United States.”

Kuperwasser said the Iran talks should “help the Americans understand that the only way to solve the problem is military power, because I think Iran is not going to show the necessary flexibility and readiness to compromise that will make Israel or the United States confident that there’s no threat Tehran’s going to become a nuclear weapons state.”

Compared to the Biden administration, he said, “I think this administration is much more aware of the threat coming from Iran, much more ready to take action about it.”

Yaakov Amidror, a retired Israeli major general and a former national security adviser to Netanyahu, told the Free Beacon that “to reach a good deal with Iran will be very hard, almost impossible.” A devastating strike on Iran’s nuclear program, on the other hand, would be relatively easy because Israel has decimated Iran’s air defenses and terrorist proxies over the past 18 months of war, according to Amidror. Still, he argued, Israel should not try to force the Trump administration’s hand.

“We can support the Americans with intelligence to help them understand the situation,” said Amidror, a researcher at the JISS and the Jewish Institute for National Security of America in Washington, D.C.. “But the Americans should come to the conclusion on their own that they need to strike Iran.”

Asked if he believed Trump would ultimately come around to Israel’s view, Amidror answered indirectly.

“I think many Americans understand that a strike on Iran is in the interest of America,” he said. “In a way, I don’t think America can buy back its credibility without doing it.”

Originally published in the Washington Free Beacon.