Omani diplomatic efforts have brought indirect negotiations between the United States and Iran back to the fore, as senior Omani officials publicly confirm that talks are progressing faster than expected. The proposed framework being discussed would see Iran forswear nuclear weapons in exchange for the easing of sanctions and recognition of its right to peaceful nuclear energy, according to statements from Oman’s foreign ministry. This prospective arrangement has reignited serious concerns in Israel, which views renewed negotiations as a potential repeat of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—an agreement Israeli security officials argue enabled Iran to secretly continue military nuclear development under civilian cover.
Israel’s apprehension is shaped by well-documented evidence of Iranian noncompliance in the past. In 2018, Israeli operatives revealed Iran’s previously undisclosed ‘atomic archive,’ details of which were smuggled from a Tehran warehouse and presented to the international community. The documents demonstrated that, even during supposed transparency periods under the JCPOA, Iran was actively pursuing nuclear weapons design and enrichment, under the guidance of senior scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Israeli intelligence and successive government officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have insisted that Iran’s assurances regarding peaceful nuclear intentions are contradicted by a history of secrecy and deception.
From Jerusalem’s perspective, any new international accord—however strict on paper—must be both verifiable and enforceable. Israel’s security doctrine is built on the necessity of independence in existential matters. No diplomatic language can substitute for concrete deterrence, robust intelligence, or operational readiness. The United States and Israel continue to share high-level intelligence and strategic assessments, but Jerusalem withholds its most sensitive operational capabilities as a safeguard, reserving the option for unilateral defensive measures should diplomacy fail.
The return to serious negotiations is also connected to broader regional dynamics. Oman, with longstanding ties to both the US and Iran, has positioned itself as the Gulf’s primary diplomatic conduit. This approach comes at a time when the international community anxiously monitors Iran’s acceleration of uranium enrichment, reduction in IAEA oversight, and technological advances that may put bomb-grade material within Tehran’s reach. Israeli analysts argue that sanctions relief from a new deal would serve to embolden Iran’s regional ambitions and further empower its network of proxy organizations—Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-affiliated militias in Syria and Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen—all committed to confrontation with Israel and destabilization of neighboring countries.
The 2015 accord, roundly criticized by Israeli leaders, permitted sunset clauses and limited inspections, affording Iran opportunities for obfuscation. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has since reported difficulty in verifying Iran’s declarations, with analysts warning that covert production at concealed, fortified facilities remains a persistent threat. Ongoing missile development and regional arms transfers by Iran illustrate the broader context: the nuclear challenge is inseparable from the strategic threat posed by Tehran’s ideological and military proxies, united in their stated opposition to Israel’s existence.
Historical experience weighs heavily on Israeli decision-makers. The massacre perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, 2023, stands as a grim reminder of the region’s volatility and the deadly toll of empowering Iranian-backed terror factions. Israeli officials emphasize that any perceived latitude granted to Iran—whether through economic relief or diplomatic normalization—could trigger cascading risks for Israel and its partners in the emerging anti-Iran alignment, including the Abraham Accords framework.
For Israel, the debate is not theoretical. Successive governments have made it clear: Israel will never accept an Iranian nuclear arsenal or rely on foreign guarantees for its own security. The government’s position is anchored in insistence on immediate and unrestricted verification, total dismantlement of weaponization infrastructure, and the credible threat of automatic sanctions in the event of any breach. Anything less, officials maintain, only postpones the crisis and enables Iran’s dual-use nuclear capabilities to mature further.
Amid ongoing talks, Israeli assessments project that Iran’s nuclear scientists—many of them linked to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh’s legacy—continue their research in highly fortified, undisclosed locations, shielded from meaningful oversight. The discovery of these activities in 2018 has only deepened Israel’s conviction that the world should not be misled by conciliatory rhetoric or prematurely celebrate diplomatic breakthroughs that lack rigorous accountability.
The Omani initiative highlights once again the dangerous gap between diplomatic optimism and the tough realities of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. As international actors pursue a return to negotiation, Israel remains vigilant, prepared to assert its right to self-defense through a combination of intelligence, deterrence, and, if necessary, decisive action.
Ultimately, the future of the region and global security hinge on whether new agreements will move beyond the shortcomings of past frameworks—ensuring Iran cannot progress toward weaponization under the guise of peaceful energy, and upholding the security of Israel and its allies in the face of persistent Iranian aggression.
