Sharp divisions have emerged within ongoing US-Iran nuclear negotiations, as disputes over the scope of Iranian uranium enrichment threaten to stall progress on a new agreement. The United States and Iran are engaged in high-stakes talks that have far-reaching implications for Middle Eastern security, with Israeli officials warning that the resulting deal could leave their country dangerously exposed.
At the center of the diplomatic deadlock is the question of whether and to what extent Iran will be allowed to enrich uranium, the key material needed for civilian energy generation but also, in higher purities, for the development of nuclear weapons. The American approach has fluctuated—while President Donald Trump maintains that Iran must never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, specific conditions regarding enrichment have shifted among senior administration officials.
A month ago, reports indicated that US envoy Brian Witkoff’s red line would allow Iran to enrich uranium up to 3.67%, consistent with the original 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). However, sources now confirm that the American position has hardened: the prevailing red line calls for Iran to halt all uranium enrichment, invoking the ‘Libyan model’ in which enrichment infrastructure is fully dismantled. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has emerged as a key advocate for this strict position, pressing for zero enrichment in all recent policy statements.
Iran, meanwhile, claims a sovereign right to peaceful nuclear technology and maintains that civilian enrichment is essential for its energy sector. Yet Israel and numerous Western analysts point out that retention of any enrichment capability leaves the door open for a rapid, clandestine shift toward weapons development should political circumstances change. Even low-level enrichment is seen as a latent security threat given Iran’s history of deception and the technical ease with which enrichment levels can be accelerated.
Israeli officials have been vocal in their concerns, emphasizing that narrowly focusing on nuclear enrichment overlooks broader regional threats. Tehran’s support for a network of terror proxies—including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and other groups across Syria, Iraq, and Yemen—creates a multi-layered risk for Israel far beyond the nuclear file. The October 7th massacre perpetrated by Hamas, the deadliest antisemitic attack since the Holocaust, stands as a stark reminder of what can result from unchecked Iranian support for terror organizations.
Emerging details of the proposed US-Iran agreement reveal critical gaps: the treaty-in-progress reportedly does not restrict Iran’s ballistic missile programs nor require the Islamic Republic to curb its material and operational backing for terror proxies stationed on Israel’s borders. The Israel Defense Forces and intelligence agencies have repeatedly warned that such omissions would leave Israel and regional US allies vulnerable to Iranian aggression, regardless of any nuclear constraints Iran might temporarily accept.
The background to Iran’s nuclear efforts is fraught with incidents of subterfuge and violations of international norms. Since the revelation of covert nuclear sites in the early 2000s, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has maintained close oversight of clandestine procurement and centrifuge development efforts. Strong evidence, including a cache of Iranian documents seized by Mossad in 2018, indicates that Tehran continued research directly applicable to bomb design, even after purportedly suspending military elements of its nuclear program.
Against this backdrop, Israel’s demand for a zero-enrichment standard is rooted in experience. Both Iraq’s and Syria’s clandestine weapons programs were destroyed in preemptive Israeli operations, justified after the fact by international bodies as necessary measures when diplomacy and verification failed. Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF Chief Eyal Zamir, argue that with Iranian threats coupled with proxy violence and missile proliferation, preemption remains an indispensable part of Israel’s security doctrine.
The military component of Iran’s strategy cannot be understated. Tehran has expanded its missile inventory and transfer of advanced weaponry to Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups, with Iranian rockets and drones increasingly seen in attacks on Israeli or US partners. Regional intelligence-sharing and air defense coordination—such as between Israel, CENTCOM, and Gulf allies—have intensified in response, but Israeli decision-makers insist that lasting security requires a comprehensive resolution to all arms of Iranian aggression, not just enrichment.
The diplomatic impasse in Washington complicates Israel’s strategic calculus. As the US administration vacillates between maximalist and more permissive positions, Iran exploits these differences to prolong its program and divide Western opposition. Israeli officials warn that a weak or partial agreement could reduce international scrutiny and sanctions pressure, while Iran continues to arm proxies threatening Israeli civilians.
Ultimately, Israel’s position is unwavering: any agreement allowing Iranian enrichment or failing to address terror infrastructure and missile development will not neutralize the threat. Instead, it risks emboldening Tehran and destabilizing the entire region. Israeli and allied policymakers argue for an integrated approach—tying nuclear constraints to dismantling the IRGC’s terror proxies and restricting missile proliferation—to genuinely contain Iran’s capacity for violence and intimidation.
Until such a resolution is reached, Israel maintains its right and readiness to act unilaterally in self-defense. As the prospects for a comprehensive and effective agreement remain uncertain, the security of Israel and the stability of the Middle East rest on the outcome of these fraught negotiations.
