Strike talk as leverage: What’s driving Israel’s messaging on Iran?

Report by Amal Shehadeh, English adaptation by Mariella Succar

Despite an agreement with Washington not to strike Iran, Israel continues to promote the need for such an attack, particularly amid Tehran’s insistence on continuing uranium enrichment.

Israeli concerns will be discussed in Washington by Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer and Mossad Director David Barnea, who are set to meet with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff ahead of the sixth round of talks with the Iranians, scheduled for Sunday.

Despite security and military officials expecting the Israeli delegation to fail in persuading Donald Trump of the need to launch a strike on Iran, sources familiar with the phone call between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the two leaders are aligned — each for his reasons — in promoting the possibility of such an attack.

Trump continues to signal the potential for military action, hoping Iran will back down from its demands and move negotiations forward. Netanyahu, meanwhile, amplifies threats of a strike to serve domestic political purposes, aiming to prevent the collapse of his government.

In both cases, all reports indicate that Israel cannot carry out such an attack without U.S. approval.

An Israeli report reveals that any strike on Iran would require reaching facilities buried dozens of meters deep in solid rock, while the weaponry currently available to Tel Aviv can only achieve minimal damage — whether in terms of bomb effectiveness or aircraft capability.

This has made the reality of the threat increasingly transparent, amid two possible scenarios:

If Netanyahu’s government falls following a potential Knesset collapse — should ultra-Orthodox parties succeed in their political battle — Israel’s priorities, already shifting toward early elections, could be reshaped.

If Netanyahu survives the vote, securing his political standing, the Iranian file may recede from the top of his agenda.