War Is Diplomacy — But Not for Israel

How Netanyahu Shattered the Middle East’s Last Hope for Peace

Operation Rising Lion, Israel’s devastating assault on Natanz and Fordow, obliterated the most promising diplomatic initiative in decades. The strikes revealed a troubling truth about Israeli strategic thinking: for Netanyahu’s government, war is not diplomacy by other means – it is diplomacy’s replacement.

The timing of Operation Rising Lion reveals Netanyahu’s true intentions. Launching strikes just 48 hours before the Oman talks was calculated sabotage. Consider what Israel actually demanded: complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and zero uranium enrichment. It was a demand for unconditional surrender that no sovereign nation would accept.

More tellingly, the operation specifically targeted Iran’s top nuclear negotiators alongside military commanders, including IRGC commander Hossein Salami and key nuclear scientists. The assassination of diplomatic figures was a strategic decapitation of Iran’s negotiating capacity. By eliminating the very people who might have made compromises, Israel ensured that even if talks resumed, Iran would lack the institutional knowledge and moderate voices necessary for successful diplomacy.

Perhaps most catastrophically, Israel’s strikes may have achieved the opposite of their intended effect. Rather than setting back Iran’s nuclear program, the attacks likely accelerated Iran’s race to weapons capability. Tehran’s leadership, having witnessed the destruction of their facilities and the assassination of their negotiators, now has powerful incentives to pursue nuclear deterrence as quickly as possible.

The logic is brutally simple: Iran’s conventional military proved inadequate to deter Israeli attacks on its nuclear infrastructure. Only nuclear weapons can provide the deterrence that conventional forces could not. By demonstrating Iran’s vulnerability to preemptive strikes, Israel may have convinced Iranian hardliners that rapid weapons development is their only path to security.

Intelligence assessments suggest Iran could now achieve weapons-grade enrichment within months rather than years, motivated by the demonstrated need for nuclear deterrence. The “breakout time” that Israeli officials sought to extend through military action may actually have been shortened by their own strikes. In trying to prevent Iranian nuclear weapons through force, Israel may have made them inevitable.

Netanyahu’s decision to launch the strikes without US approval revealed another troubling dimension. President Trump, despite his “maximum pressure” approach to Iran, had explicitly warned against military action while negotiations were possible. Trump’s frustration with Netanyahu’s unilateral move strained the US-Israel relationship at precisely the moment when American diplomatic cover was most needed.

This pattern reflects a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the Iranian threat. While Washington sees Iran’s nuclear program as a manageable challenge requiring sustained diplomatic engagement backed by credible military threats, Jerusalem views it as an existential crisis requiring immediate elimination. By framing Iran’s nuclear program in existential terms, Israeli leaders have made compromise impossible for themselves and their American allies.

The broader Middle East paid dearly for this strategic miscalculation. Iran’s massive retaliation with over 100 drones and hundreds of ballistic missiles killed 14 Israeli civilians and sent oil prices spiking on fears of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz. Saudi Arabia’s careful mediation efforts between regional powers collapsed overnight.

Most damaging was the impact on the nuclear nonproliferation regime itself. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi’s condemnation highlighted how Israel’s actions undermined international frameworks designed to prevent nuclear proliferation. By attacking declared nuclear facilities under international monitoring, Israel set a precedent that could justify future attacks on nuclear infrastructure worldwide.

Iran’s withdrawal from negotiations now makes it virtually impossible to reimpose comprehensive UN sanctions. 

For Netanyahu, the strikes served important domestic political purposes. Facing corruption charges and a fractured coalition, he needed a decisive victory to consolidate his position. 

But this domestic political logic came at enormous strategic cost. By prioritizing short-term political gains over long-term regional stability, Netanyahu chose a path that guaranteed future diplomatic solutions would be far more difficult. The strikes may have bought Israel time, but they also ensured that when Iran rebuilds its nuclear program, the country will be far less willing to accept international constraints.

War is indeed diplomacy by other means. But only when it serves diplomatic ends. Israel’s June 2025 strikes served no diplomatic purpose because they were designed to eliminate diplomacy altogether. The result was not enhanced security but increased instability, not reduced nuclear threats but accelerated proliferation risks.

The Middle East will live with the consequences of this choice for years to come.