Israel finds itself in a familiar position this week: Washington is negotiating a nuclear deal with Tehran while blocking Israel from striking Iran at what it sees as an opportune time. 

In contrast with a decade ago, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly campaigned against then-President Barack Obama entering the U.S. into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to curb Iran’s nuclear activity, President Donald Trump seems to have Netanyahu boxed in. 

Trump announced the start of direct talks between the U.S. and Iran last Monday in the Oval Office with Netanyahu, who appeared uncomfortable. Israeli sources told Jewish Insider at the time that they knew negotiations between Washington and Tehran were set to begin soon but did not know the date before meeting with Trump. Netanyahu called for a Libya-style deal, meaning the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.

Behind closed doors that day, Trump ruled out a U.S.-supported Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites until the diplomatic option is exhausted, according to The New York Times. The time to decide on diplomacy or military action is limited, as nearly six months have passed since Israel destroyed Iran’s air defenses, and a mechanism of the 2015 deal to snap back U.N. sanctions on Iran expires in October 2025.

Days later, Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, spoke with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman, the highest level dialogue between the two countries in years. On his return to Washington, Witkoff sent mixed messages about the potential contours of a new nuclear deal. First, he suggested that Iran would be able to continue its uranium enrichment program for civilian purposes, limited to 3.67% enrichment. Critics of the JCPOA, which included similar low-level enrichment, argued that it allowed Iran to maintain a path to a nuclear weapon. The following day, Witkoff walked those comments back, posting on X that a deal would mean that “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

A Trump administration source told JI on condition of anonymity that while the president is firm on not letting Iran have a nuclear weapon, the policy of how to get there is still in flux. Witkoff faithfully represents the president to the extent that he, like the president, will float ideas publicly to see the reaction and adjust accordingly, the source said.

IDF Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, head of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told JI that the Trump administration is “speaking generally, not about the details. They understand very well the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.” 

Shira Efron, director of research at the Israel Policy Forum, noted that it is still too early to know what a deal will look like.

“There seem to be divisions within the administration itself,” Efron told JI. “There’s a camp that favors a deal … and really sees China as the main adversary while Iran isn’t a priority. Then there are those more aligned with the Israeli position. We don’t know which way this is going to go.”

That did not allay the concerns of some JCPOA critics that the new deal may recycle what they see as the weaknesses of the old one.

Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told JI: “There is no right to enrich. It’s a made-up term … The whole premise plays into Iranian hands.”

Oren said that Obama-era CIA Director Bill Burns wrote in his memoirs that the U.S. conceded a “right to enrich” during the first negotiation meeting with Iran in 2013, and expressed concern that Witkoff had done the same in talks with the Islamic Republic in Oman on Saturday.

“Once you have the right to enrich, the negotiation is about how many centrifuges are active — because they won’t dismantle — and what is your cap on low-enriched uranium,” Oren said. “It’s a great deal for the Iranians.”

Kuperwasser said that any deal must “make sure Iran does not have the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, not just that it does not have a nuclear weapon. To not have the capability, it cannot be able to enrich uranium, or develop nuclear warheads or nuclear weapons based on uranium or plutonium. There can be no weaponization … The Americans understand that.”

According to Efron, “For Israel, a bad deal would be the worst of all outcomes. A bad deal in 2015 is not like a bad deal would be now. On the one hand, Iran is weaker” — after the Israeli strikes on its air defenses and defeat of its proxies in Lebanon and Syria — “but on the other, its nuclear program is a lot more advanced. The restrictions [in a deal] will have a different utility than they did 10 years ago.”

The Trump administration source said that Witkoff is focused on the nuclear issue in the negotiations and not Iran’s broader malign actions in the Middle East.

Oren expressed concern that, with the money coming in from sanctions relief that would come with a deal, “Iran will rebuild Syria. They’ll find someone to replace [toppled Syrian President Bashar] Assad. They’ll rebuild Hezbollah and Hamas … This is who the Iranians are. No deal will change that.”

Kuperwasser encouraged engagement between Jerusalem and Washington now to prevent a weak deal. He said that “Israel first and foremost must continue its very close communications with the Americans … to ensure that what we don’t want doesn’t happen.” 

Simultaneously, he said, “we have to prepare for joint action so that there is a military option, which will increase the chances of getting what we want diplomatically. Israel and the U.S. have to increase their military capabilities so the Iranians are convinced to accept what they don’t want.”

If the Trump administration reaches an agreement with Iran that Israel views as weak, Jerusalem may have fewer channels to push back against it.

In 2015, when Israel sought to prevent the Obama administration from entering the JCPOA — because it allowed Iran to continue enrichment activity and did not address its ballistic missile program or funding proxies, among other criticisms — Capitol Hill became the main arena of debate. Pro-Israel organizations lobbied members and Netanyahu gave a speech before a joint session of Congress.

In 2025, however, it is less likely that Trump would face such challenges. Democratic members of Congress are unlikely to support a more hawkish policy on Iran, and while some GOP senators have already voiced opposition to a deal allowing Iran to enrich, few Republicans are willing to publicly speak out against the president’s policies. 

“If the deal looks like a warmed-over JCPOA,” Efron said, “it will be the biggest challenge for Israel, because unlike with Obama, Netanyahu cannot go to Congress. I think the tools at Israel’s disposal are going to be much more limited and Israel will have to be much more sophisticated to campaign against a deal.” 

Oren said that “back in 2015, Obama didn’t submit the JCPOA for congressional approval because he knew he wouldn’t get it. President Trump today could be confident that he would.”

The former ambassador suggested that, while “in the past Israel focused its efforts on Congress, today it must focus its efforts on the White House.”

Efron argued that Israel is already doing that, with Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer “directly influencing the hawks on Iran in the White House and State Department, plus the Senate, as evidenced by statements by [Sen. Lindsey] Graham [(R-SC)] and [Sen.] Tom Cotton [(R-AR)].” 

She also suggested that Israel has leaked details of Iranian weapons smuggling to the international media and will work with like-minded organizations and think tanks in Washington.

“This will continue in full force, but there won’t be a direct confrontation with Trump and his policies like there was with Obama,” she said. 

One message Oren suggested that may be effective is to focus on expanding the Abraham Accords: “President Trump wants peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the surest way not to get one is this” — a weak Iran nuclear deal, he said.

The former ambassador also pushed back against what he called “Obama’s line that it’s either diplomacy or war. That is a totally false dichotomy … It’s totally mythic. Iran has no air force, has no ground forces, has zero ability to make war against the U.S. The notion of being afraid of a war is ridiculous.”

As to whether Netanyahu’s public embrace of Trump would make things more difficult for the prime minister to counter a weak Iran nuclear deal, Efron said “it would be hard for any leader to come out against this administration’s policies.”

Efron described the situation as “complicated,” saying that Netanyahu was very influential on Trump’s Iran policy in his first term, when he withdrew from the JCPOA.

At the same time, Netanyahu’s February visit to Washington, in which Trump treated him very well and expressed seriousness about the idea of voluntary migration of Gazans, “bought [Netanyahu] the budget,” referring to the Israeli government’s passage of its budget in March. “It extended the life of his government. He got carte blanche to do what he wanted on all borders … Netanyahu has a personal debt to Trump.”

Though “Netanyahu clearly felt uncomfortable” when Trump announced Iran talks, Efron said, the Israeli leader was “in a bind.” 

“I don’t see a situation in which Iran agrees to follow the Libya model,” she added. “If Israel continues to wish for a maximalist position, it might be left with a bad agreement. Maybe there needs to be a middle ground, something more realistic but doable and politically viable.”

Kuperwasser said it was unlikely that the Trump administration would enter into a deal that is similar to the JCPOA.

“The JCPOA paved the way for Iran to have the capability to develop massive amounts of nuclear weapons, hundreds of warheads,” he said. “I’m certain Trump does not mean for that to happen. He understands that cannot happen, so I don’t think there will be tensions with the Americans like in 2015.”

“It doesn’t mean that there won’t be disagreements at some stages of the agreement,” he added.

However, Kuperwasser argued that the chance of reaching any deal with Iran is slim. “The American demands are so great that it is hard to believe the Iranians will accept them,” he said.

As such, Kuperwasser added, “We need to be ready [for a strike on Iran], maybe with American cooperation. Trump doesn’t want to do it, but maybe he will see that he has to.”

If there is a deal that Israel views as bad, Kuperwasser said, “Israel will have no choice but to accept it. I don’t see Israel preventing an American agreement by attacking Iran.”