The world, including Israel, went to sleep a few days ago with the understanding and expectation of a significant American strike on Iran, following the brutal suppression of protests, the indiscriminate killing of thousands (and perhaps tens of thousands) of demonstrators, and President Donald Trump’s promises of imminent assistance. Yet, despite all the signs, the world awoke to a reality in which President Trump had still not struck, reminiscent of what happened in the past under President Obama in Syria.
Because President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke during the day preceding the “planned strike” (the call was confirmed by both Jerusalem and Washington, though its content was not disclosed), reports began spreading on social media like wildfire that Netanyahu had asked Trump to delay the strike, or perhaps even not to strike at all, in order to give Israel time to prepare for a response. As a result, inside those reports, responsibility for the fact that the United States did not strike Iran was placed solely on Israel.
Regardless of whether these reports are true, partially true, or not true at all, it is crucial to understand and internalize that the responsibility and the decision rest with President Trump alone. This is a principled and highly important decision, and even if he consults with the Prime Minister of Israel and perhaps other leaders in the Middle East, anyone familiar with Trump and his decision-making style must know that the decision, apparently still not taken, resides solely between the President’s own ears.
In the days before the "planned strike’, we witnessed the materialization of all the preliminary indicators leading to a strike: recommendations for Americans to leave Iran, the evacuation of families and non-essential personnel from US bases in the Gulf, the deployment of some critical assets in the region, and the explicit threats by the President and his aides.
Despite all this, the strike has not yet taken place, likely due to internal debates within the administration, stemming primarily from the difficulty of defining a clear objective and a desired endgame outcome for a possible strike, of whatever scope is chosen. There is no indication that the administration has defined a goal of toppling the regime and replacing it, particularly since it is clear that the right way to do it is through the Iranian people, not via an external actor.
The greatest danger is no strike at all
However, the great danger that must be prevented is that the chain of events will lead to the United States ultimately not striking Iran at all, even symbolically. In such a case, regardless of what was said in Netanyahu-Trump conversations, Netanyahu will be blamed. Iranian protesters, who are already off the streets out of fear of brutal repression, will conclude that they have no one to rely on and that help will not come from any external actor; consequently, they will not return to the streets.
President Trump, as part of his campaign for the Nobel Prize, will then declare that thanks to his clear threats, calm has returned to the streets of Iran, and now is the time to enter negotiations with Khamenei and his associates on all disputed issues. This is a realistic and catastrophic scenario, because it is clear how it would end. Not once in the past has entering the negotiating room with Iran produced a good agreement, except for the Iranians.
Because this scenario is realistic and highly likely if there is no strike, and because President Trump is apparently still deliberating, it must be made clear to him, regardless of what was said in previous conversations, that he must strike Iran. Preferably, there should be a broad American strike on infrastructure facilities, regime institutions, and on the entities and individuals who led the suppression of the protests. But even if a broad strike is not approved, a symbolic strike may still avert the danger of drifting into calm that leads to negotiations whose outcome would be highly problematic for both the United States and Israel.
If, despite this, the recommendation is not accepted and we will arrive at an undesirable US–Iran negotiation, then after the Israeli-US campaign that destroyed large parts of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missiles, and drones, only one objective should remain for negotiations: the complete dismantlement of whatever remains of the nuclear and ballistic missiles programs and capabilities. We must not continue creating illusions, partial and incremental agreements, and diplomatic "games".
A new round of talks with Iran
The problem is that the president's special envoy Witkoff, together with Jared Kushner, are apparently pushing for a new round of talks with Tehran, inspired by Qatar, Turkey, and even Saudi Arabia, and we must stop it in time.
Trump’s old ultimatum to Tehran was sharp and clear: “Accept the terms of the United States or face the consequences.” This threat must remain, accompanied by determination. Any entry into negotiations without clear preconditions that Iran must fulfill could be dangerous. Now, after Iran’s capabilities have been severely damaged and the state is close to security and economic collapse, the threshold for entering talks must be very high. Any negotiations must begin only after Iran meets concrete, verifiable preliminary demands.
Iran enriched uranium to high levels in violation of IAEA decisions, attacked Israel directly from Iranian territory, and launched hundreds of ballistic missiles, more than a thousand drones, and dozens of cruise missiles against civilian and military targets. Iran must dismantle all nuclear infrastructure and missile and UAV production infrastructure and sites, destroy existing stockpiles, and halt any development of delivery systems capable of carrying nuclear warheads, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that can also threaten the United States.
In the past, Iran has specialized in exploiting diplomacy to buy time, deceive, and mislead while continuing to advance its programs, as it is doing today, focusing on building new underground capabilities that are currently presented as benign but will, in the future, be outfitted with facilities to develop nuclear and ballistic capabilities that cannot be struck from the air, according to foreign reports.
The United States must continue on the path President Trump declared during the protests in Iran and provide the assistance and answers he promised to Iranian citizens yearning for change. External support would reignite the flames and the protests and might lead to the breaking of the protective front shielding the current corrupt regime, and to its replacement by the Iranian people.
Brig. Gen. (res.) Jacob Nagel is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a professor at the Technion. He served as National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu and as the head of the National Security Council (acting).