US President Donald Trump has declined a proposal from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a military strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, according to reports in The New York Times and other American and Israeli media.
Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington, his first since Trump’s re-election, was aimed not at trade discussions, but at securing US support for an Israeli-led operation designed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Sources familiar with the talks indicate that Netanyahu’s principal objective was to discuss Israel’s military plan to neutralise Iranian nuclear sites. However, President Trump maintained his preference for a diplomatic solution, resisting pressure to endorse pre-emptive military action.
The decision has revealed significant divisions within the Trump administration. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz are reportedly in favour of a military response, broadly supporting Israel’s strategy, in which Israel would lead a strike while the United States would provide defensive assistance in the event of Iranian retaliation.
Opposing this position are Vice President JD Vance, Presidential Special Representative Steve Witkoff, and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, all of whom advocate continued negotiations. They cite the potential for a severe energy crisis triggered by a regional war, which could drive oil prices sharply higher and harm an already fragile US economy.
While the two camps remain at odds, President Trump has thus far aligned himself with the diplomatic faction. A first round of talks between Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has already taken place in Muscat, with Omani mediation. A second round is expected to occur shortly in Rome.
Iranian officials appear to be employing a delaying tactic, mirroring the negotiation strategy often deployed by Moscow, aimed at prolonging dialogue without reaching substantive agreements. Tehran’s aim is to retain key elements of its nuclear programme while pressing for concessions from Washington.
Iran is reportedly seeking to maintain domestic uranium enrichment under international oversight, possibly by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), while avoiding the removal of enriched material from the country. Tehran proposes that such material remain under IAEA inspection. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has recently warned that Iran is now closer than ever to the threshold of nuclear capability.
In a parallel development, Foreign Minister Araghchi travelled to Moscow this week, not primarily to meet his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, but to deliver a message from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to President Vladimir Putin. The move points to intensified coordination between Tehran and Moscow on the nuclear issue.
Reports suggest that Russia may no longer be opposed to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, viewing such a development as a means to expand its own influence in the Middle East. Tehran, for its part, continues to regard Russia as a vital strategic partner in counterbalancing US policy in the region.
Israel remains deeply concerned. Its leadership insists that any diplomatic agreement with Tehran must involve the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear potential, including the removal of all enriched material from Iranian territory and a binding prohibition on future enrichment activities.
The Iranian leadership, however, views its nuclear programme as a central instrument of regional strategy. Despite recent setbacks, including Israeli and US strikes on Iranian proxy groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, Tehran appears determined to retain its nuclear leverage.
Within the US administration, the pro-diplomacy faction’s influence has increased Tehran’s optimism. Iranian officials reportedly believe that prolonged engagement with negotiators such as Steve Witkoff could ultimately allow the Islamic Republic to preserve its ability to produce nuclear weapons when strategically expedient.
Should Iran cross the nuclear threshold, it is unlikely that Israel would be able to neutralise its facilities without triggering broader consequences. The United States, under Trump’s leadership, may adopt a more cautious posture, similar to its approach towards North Korea. President Trump has previously described North Korea as a “great nuclear power”, despite its openly hostile posture towards the United States.
There is concern in Israel that Washington could ultimately extend a similar form of reluctant accommodation to a nuclear-armed Iran, which could dramatically alter the strategic balance in the Middle East. For Tehran, the key lies in prolonging negotiations while maintaining strategic alignment with Moscow – a dual-track approach aimed at securing long-term nuclear capability under the cover of diplomacy.
Read also:
Donald Trump’s Statement on Iran: A Potential Shift Towards Confrontation
