Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cited three major threats that Israel has faced in the past as “Iran, Iran and Iran.” He is primarily stakes his career as an Israeli protector against Israeli nuclear ambitions, and has been openly facing Tehran in recent months, in war with Iran-backed militias in the region.
Therefore, many Israelis were surprised when President Trump announced that he would engage in “direct” negotiations with Iran on Saturday in a final effort to curb the country's nuclear program, while Netanyahu was sitting by him.
Trump's statement splattered across the top pages of major Israeli newspapers on Tuesday morning. As the day went by, the critics became heavier and heavier, analysing the pros and cons of unexpected development.
By Israel's evening, Netanyahu issued a video statement prior to his departure from Washington, where he mainly worked to highlight his close alliance and partnership with the Trump administration.
“I agree that Iran has no nuclear weapons,” he said. That, he explained, meant that the complete destruction of Iran's vast nuclear programme, blowing up facilities, dismantling all the equipment, everything was done by the United States.
But if Iran drags out consultations, Netanyahu said the second option would be a military option. “Everyone understands that,” he said.
Iran's nuclear program is considered to be at the most advanced stage of its entirety, so some Israeli experts have suggested that now is the best time to attack Tehran's nuclear facility. Iran's traditional allies on Israeli borders have been weakened in the case of Hezbollah, Lebanon. Or, it fell in the case of the Syrian Assad regime. This means that after Israel is hit in the fall, the attack could exploit Tehran's vulnerability.
If a direct meeting takes place, it would be the first official face-to-face negotiations between the two countries as Trump abandoned the Obama-era nuclear deal at the request of Netanyahu, who he denounced as a “bad deal” seven years ago.
“That would be a good thing,” Netanyahu said at his oval office on Monday if Iran was absolutely prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons through diplomatic means.
Many Israelis would agree.
“Ideals would be a very good agreement for Israel,” said Joel Guzansky, senior researcher and principal of the Gulf Program at the National Security Institute at Tel Aviv University. He said he wanted Trump's approach to be “aggressive” than the previous administration's approach in dealing with Iran.
“But there's nothing ideal in the world,” adds Xansky, expressing widespread concern that Trump “may want to be more flexible than Israel,” and said it could open a gap around issues between Israel and Washington.
While Israel has to sit near Iran and live along the border, the US is thousands of miles away and has other pressing issues, Guzansky said. He said he hopes Netanyahu will continue to have the ears of the Trump administration and that Israel will be kept in photographs.
Some Israeli analysts have banked the bank for such a failed consultation, noting that Iranians are tough negotiators.
Many took comfort in Trump's declaration and considered Tehran “in great danger” when he pointed out reports of the recent deployment of at least six B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia on the Indian Ocean Island as concrete evidence of its military choice against Iran.
“There is no chance that Ayatollahs will agree to direct,” Israel Hayom's diplomatic commentator Ariel Kahana wrote Tuesday, predicting the Trump administration is imposing difficult terms on the agreement on Iran.
“Therefore, it's only a matter of time before a military conflict with Iran,” Kahana continued.
