Deterrence or Diplomacy: The U.S.–Iran Agreement from an Israeli Perspective

The U.S. agreement with Iran, as reported, places Israel before one of the most complex strategic dilemmas it has faced in recent years. On the one hand, any move that distances Iran from nuclear weapons and prevents a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is a clear Israeli interest. On the other hand, deep disappointment is being expressed in Jerusalem over the perception that the agreement does not fully address the broader Iranian threat or reduce the influence of its radical regime across the region through its proxies.

The main advantage of such an agreement is the possibility of creating a period of relative stability. If the deal includes reliable inspection mechanisms, restrictions on uranium enrichment, and effective international monitoring, it could delay Iran’s ability to move toward nuclear weapons, or prevent it altogether, as U.S. President Donald Trump has pledged. Regionally, lowering tensions between Washington and Tehran could reduce the risk of a wider military escalation that would affect the entire Middle East.

Furthermore, a diplomatic agreement allows the United States to maintain its involvement in the region and prevent Iran from acting without constraints. For Israel, regional stability is a critical component of national security, especially at a time when it faces threats on multiple fronts simultaneously.

However, from the Israeli perspective, the agreement also raises significant concerns. The central argument in Jerusalem is that the Iranian threat is not limited to the nuclear program alone. Over the years, Iran has built a regional network that includes armed organizations, missiles, drones, and political influence in several countries. An agreement that does not directly address ballistic missile capabilities and Iran’s proxy network may leave the core elements of the threat intact.

Another major concern for Israel is the linkage Iran has managed to establish with the situation in Lebanon. Under the current framework, any serious attack on Iran’s center of influence in Beirut could be viewed as a violation of the agreement, a condition that Israel believes Washington has effectively accepted by placing restrictions on Israeli military operations in Lebanon.

Israel also fears a scenario in which Iran uses the agreement to gain economic relief, rebuild its internal capabilities, and continue its regional activities. According to Israeli assessments, past experience shows that Tehran knows how to exploit diplomatic openings in order to advance long-term strategic interests.

The agreement’s main regional consequence could be a shift in the balance of power. Gulf states are closely watching developments, and some may seek understandings with an Iranian regime that could emerge stronger and maintain influence over maritime oil export routes through the Strait of Hormuz. On the other hand, this development may push some Gulf countries to strengthen security ties with Israel out of concern over Iran’s return to a more dominant regional role.

Ultimately, Israel will have to adapt to a new reality: the United States has chosen diplomacy as its approach toward Iran, while Israel continues to emphasize that responsibility for its security rests in its own hands. The challenge will be to preserve strategic relations with Washington while ensuring that a policy of containment does not become an acceptance of long-term threats.