The United States has increased diplomatic activity surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, with new indirect talks brokered by Oman and an upcoming round of negotiations expected in Europe. These efforts are viewed with apprehension by Israeli officials, who warn that any deal short of dismantling the Islamic Republic’s enrichment infrastructure could embolden Tehran’s regional terrorist proxies and further destabilize the Middle East.
The recent diplomatic initiatives, led on the U.S. side by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, have raised questions in Jerusalem and in Washington. Witkoff’s appointment to these sensitive talks—rather than a seasoned career diplomat—reflects either a novel approach by the administration or, as some analysts suggest, a deliberate lowering of expectations for a breakthrough. The initial meeting, described by regional sources with access to Arabic-language reporting, served mainly as a cautious exploratory contact, rather than a venue for concrete agreements.
Leaked information from these discussions suggests that Washington is shifting its focus from dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program to a framework based on monitoring and containment. This apparent strategic recalibration has unsettled Israel’s security establishment. Israeli leaders and intelligence officials argue that simply increasing oversight—rather than removing Iran’s capacity—does little to mitigate the underlying risk posed by a regime that has repeatedly spread advanced weapons and funds to militant organizations.
The nuclear program is not the only concern. The development and proliferation of Iranian ballistic missiles remain a central obstacle to any accord. Israeli and Arab officials consistently argue that any deal failing to address both the nuclear and missile issues only legitimizes the Islamic Republic and provides it with renewed financial resources. Recent history indicates that sanctions relief for Iran leads to major boosts for groups allied to Tehran, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and other proxies across Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has reportedly ordered the country’s armed forces and security agencies to the highest state of alert, a development regional security analysts interpret as a sign of Iranian distrust and the fragile nature of the talks. The next phase of negotiations—expected this weekend in Europe—will be critical. Observers anticipate two main topics: uranium enrichment limits and missile development. Given President Donald Trump’s impatience for drawn-out negotiations, U.S. mediators are under pressure to produce rapid results. Iranian negotiators, however, are experts at prolonging talks and extracting concessions.
Many Israeli officials expect that Israel will not accept a deal perceived as providing Iran with a pathway to continue enrichment or to secure new funding. They point to the legacy of the October 7 Hamas attack—the worst antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust—and the threat posed by Iranian proxies as evidence that only sustained pressure and credible deterrence can safeguard Israeli and regional interests.
The international community has also weighed in. European governments recently issued statements calling for credible restrictions on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, with some sources indicating growing frustration with the U.S. approach. Despite diplomatic signaling from all sides, public sentiment in the United States appears largely unmoved by distant nuclear threats, with domestic attention focused instead on economic pressures, such as energy prices.
This intersection of energy policy, regional instability, and great power rivalry—including Russia’s war in Ukraine and China’s ambitions in Asia—creates additional complications for any Washington-Tehran deal. Israeli officials continue to stress that no Western agreement should enable Iran’s aspirations or allow it to expand its operational reach through affiliated terror networks.
Looking ahead, the outcome of the next round of talks will be decisive. If American negotiators agree to concessions that leave Iran’s enrichment capacity or missile program largely intact, Israeli policymakers are unlikely to consider the result legitimate or binding. This could force Israel to consider further unilateral security actions and heighten tensions across the region.
For Israel, the threat posed by an Iranian regime committed to building its nuclear and terrorist capabilities is existential. The record of failed agreements, unenforced red lines, and the empowering of proxy militias across the Middle East underscores the seriousness with which Jerusalem views the current phase of diplomacy. Israeli resolve—to act independently if necessary—remains unwavering, as does its insistence that any international negotiation protect not only Israel’s security but the broader stability of the region.
