In recent remarks to Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, prominent reformist politician and former presidential contender Mohsen Rahami asserted that Israel is the only country actively opposing renewed diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the United States. His statements highlight the evolving landscape in the Middle East, where dramatic shifts in alliances and interests are changing the prospects for both diplomacy and conflict throughout the region.
Rahami claimed that, apart from Israel and internal Iranian regime opponents he labeled ‘extremist elements,’ there is consensus across the region in favor of resuming diplomatic engagement with the United States regarding Iran’s nuclear program. He specifically pointed to Saudi Arabia, a power previously known for its adversarial stance towards Iran, as supporting negotiations. Rahami further claimed that so long as the American demand remains limited to stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—a capability he reiterated Iran does not seek—agreement could be possible.
Israel’s security and diplomatic leadership maintain deep skepticism about any emerging agreements with Iran. Officials point to years of covert nuclear development by Tehran, as confirmed by international nuclear inspectors and Israeli intelligence, and allege Iran’s nuclear activity remains fundamentally tied to its longstanding campaign for regional hegemony. Since the United States withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018, both Iranian nuclear activities and international concerns have grown. Israel continues to view Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, and senior military officials including IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir have repeatedly stated that Israel will act to prevent Tehran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon, using military means if necessary.
Regional realignment in recent years—catalyzed by the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords that normalized ties between Israel and several Gulf states—has contributed to shifting Middle Eastern priorities, especially in confronting the shared threat posed by Iranian-backed proxies. These changes have opened new channels for security cooperation, economic ties, and even diplomatic dialogue between states previously at odds. Saudi Arabia, for instance, has reportedly weighed normalization with Israel and deepened quiet cooperation on security and intelligence issues. However, Riyadh also recalibrates its approach to Tehran, seeking stability and cautiously backing negotiations to reduce direct confrontation. Yet these diplomatic moves do not equate to trust; they are driven by pragmatic calculations about risk, security, and the avoidance of all-out regional war.
Despite Iranian assurances, Israel and key Western powers remain concerned that Iran continues to enrich uranium far beyond civilian needs, obstruct full access for international nuclear inspectors, and maintain clandestine research related to weaponization. The October 7th, 2023 massacre by Hamas terrorists in southern Israel—planned and perpetrated with direct Iranian material and ideological support—sharpened Israeli fears over the consequences of emboldened terror proxies. Iranian support for Hamas, Lebanese Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and affiliated militias in Syria and Iraq, has cemented its status as the central force in the so-called ‘axis of resistance,’ actively destabilizing the region and threatening both Israeli and Arab governments allied with the United States.
Israel insists it cannot accept a deal that does not include strict, verifiable, and enforceable mechanisms constraining both Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its ability to funnel resources to terror groups. Previous deals, Israeli officials contend, contained sunset clauses and loopholes that bought time for Tehran but failed to produce lasting security. Israel maintains readiness to act unilaterally against Iranian nuclear sites if circumstances demand, emphasizing its sovereign right to defend itself in accordance with international law.
Advocates of renewed engagement argue that diplomacy, accompanied by robust verification, is preferable to the risks of war. Critics point out that the Iranian regime uses negotiations to relieve economic pressure while continuing its destabilizing policies. Inside Iran, the hardline Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) continues to direct support for terror, suppress dissent, and export ideological militancy across the region—placing it at direct odds with both Israel and America’s allies.
As American and Iranian diplomats maneuver against a backdrop of mutual mistrust, Israel stands firm, insisting that any new agreement must address not just the nuclear file, but also Tehran’s machinery of regional terror and subversion. The approach is widely supported across Israel’s fractious political spectrum and is grounded in the lessons of history—including the failure of appeasement, the price of unheeded warnings, and the persistence of state-sponsored antisemitic hatred, which culminated most recently in the October 7th atrocities.
The diplomatic horizon remains fraught. While some Gulf states cautiously favor negotiation and de-escalation, Israel continues to bear the burden of vigilance, refusing to cede its security to the assurances of a regime that remains, by its own admission, fundamentally hostile. With powers like the United States attempting to balance diplomatic outreach and deterrence, the Middle East’s future will likely be shaped by the interplay of continued terror threats, shifting alliances, and the unwavering determination of Israel to defend its people and sovereignty.
