A recent statement by US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has reignited debate within Israeli and Western strategic circles over the future of American policy toward Iran’s nuclear program. In an interview with ABC News, Sullivan suggested that the contours of a new deal being considered by former US President Donald Trump align closely with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated under the Obama administration. This revelation, set against the backdrop of renewed diplomatic efforts, has triggered apprehension among Israeli security institutions, who have consistently opposed concessionary accords with the Iranian regime.
Sullivan’s remarks come as US and Iranian intermediaries engage in indirect negotiations—often facilitated by European and Gulf partners—seeking to restrain Iran’s advancing uranium enrichment and restore a framework for international inspections. The JCPOA, agreed in 2015 by Iran and six world powers, imposed temporary curbs on Iran’s nuclear activity in exchange for sanctions relief, but was fiercely criticized in Israel for sunset clauses and inadequate provisions to counter Iranian missile testing and support for terror proxies.
President Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA in 2018, launching a maximum pressure campaign that re-imposed sweeping sanctions. Israeli leaders at the time supported the move, arguing that the 2015 deal allowed Iran to preserve key elements of its nuclear infrastructure and failed to address regional destabilization carried out by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other proxies.
For Israel, which regards Iran’s repeated threats and terror sponsorship as existential dangers, any arrangement short of total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear and military ambitions is considered inadequate. Officials in Jerusalem have reiterated that a return to the old framework would embolden Tehran and potentially accelerate a nuclear race across the Middle East. “Israeli security doctrine holds that credible deterrence—not paper guarantees—ensures national survival,” said a senior Israeli defense analyst, reflecting the dominant view within the defense establishment.
The urgency of the matter is underscored by recent escalations: On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists—backed by Iranian funding and coordination—launched the deadliest single-day antisemitic massacre since the Holocaust against Israeli civilians, resulting in more than 1,200 murdered and hundreds abducted. The Iron Swords War, Israel’s military response, has unfolded against a regional surge of attacks by Iranian-backed groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen targeting international shipping. Iran’s efforts to entrench proxy militias in Syria and Iraq further complicate the region’s volatile security landscape.
Sullivan’s acknowledgement that a Trump-era diplomatic reset may mirror the JCPOA in substance raises questions over whether US policy will fundamentally shift irrespective of who occupies the White House. While Biden administration officials claim to seek a “longer and stronger” follow-up deal, leaks from the negotiation process indicate that the substantive provisions being discussed do not dramatically deviate from previous terms—limited enrichment, staged sanctions relief, and selective oversight, with little leverage over Iran’s extraterritorial military activity.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz maintain that military options must remain viable if diplomacy falters. The Israeli Defense Forces, led by Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, continue to coordinate closely with their American counterparts, sharing intelligence and contingency planning.
Iran’s wider strategic campaign has involved aggressive expansion of ballistic missile programs and provision of weaponry and training to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Israeli officials insist that any credible diplomatic resolution must include firm verifiable guarantees—not just against enrichment, but against the transfer of arms and funds to terror organizations throughout the region. Without such guarantees, Israel warns, Tehran will continue to threaten regional stability and its own existence, by design or miscalculation.
In Jerusalem’s view, the lessons of both engagement and pressure must inform Western policy. Any agreement that does not permanently neutralize Iran’s nuclear breakout ability and that omits Iranian terror sponsorship will offer only a temporary respite while allowing the regime to regroup and rearm.
As diplomatic processes resume, Israeli and American military and intelligence communities are maintaining vigilance, preparing for all contingencies, and reminding the international community of the unresolved core dangers. The painful memory of October 7 serves as a stark warning of the cost of underestimating Iran’s capacity and intent. Ultimately, Israeli policymakers conclude, the international community must reject half-measures, and history will judge Western leaders not on promises, but on the concrete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear and terror apparatus.
