Quiet Betrayal? New Nuclear Deal Leaves Israel Exposed to Iran

A Hebrew opinion-style report says a widening gap has emerged between Washington and Jerusalem over how to handle Iran’s nuclear program, and warns that a behind-the-scenes deal could leave Israel facing the threat alone. The article argues that the public image of close coordination between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu masks a much deeper strategic disagreement.

The piece says the earlier Western assumption that sanctions and economic pressure would bring down Iran’s nuclear project has only partly worked. Citing Middle East scholar Prof. Meir Litvak, it says Iran has survived by combining revolutionary ideology with pragmatic statecraft, and that its economy is structurally broken, with banks near collapse and no realistic path to recovery without a broad nuclear agreement that the current regime is unlikely to produce. Litvak is quoted saying the system is not sustainable and may end in an internal explosion or total collapse.

The report says the real issue is not the bomb itself, but who controls it, arguing that nuclear weapons become far more dangerous when relations between states deteriorate. It describes Washington as still shaped by Cold War thinking about mutually assured destruction, while Jerusalem is said to be in a state of alarm and looking for concrete action rather than theory. That gap, the article says, is creating direct friction because the two sides have not coordinated in advance.

The article then details Trump’s latest line, saying he told reporters at the G7 that Iran’s ballistic missile program would be left outside the current understandings because, as he put it, “Tehran needs to have missiles, because everyone else has them.” Trump also said the U.S. had destroyed “80%” of Iran’s arsenal and threatened, “If you don’t comply with the agreement, I’ll bomb you.”

Under the reported memorandum of understanding, there is a 60-day window to resolve the fate of 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%. The article says there is still no agreed mechanism for moving or destroying the material, no operational timetable, and no certainty Iran will give up what it views as a strategic asset.