MADRID – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Monday that Israel will “definitively resolve” the issue with Iran along with US support. His remarks came after a meeting in the occupied Al-Kud with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in the context of growing tensions with Tehran.
For the past 16 months, Israel has “a major blow” to the resistance line, Netanyahu argued at a joint press conference. Under the “strong leader” of Israeli politician Donald Trump, and under Washington’s “unwavering” support, Israel could “finish the work.”
Netanyahu described the meeting with Rubio as “very productive,” emphasising that Iran is a central topic of discussion. He stressed that both Israel and the United States share a coordinated strategy to prevent Tehran from acquiring “nuclear weapons.”
The Secretary of State strengthened this stance. “Nuclearly armed Iran never happens. Iran with nuclear capabilities to protect itself from sanctions and external pressure is simply not an option,” Rubio argued. “President Trump was clear about this issue,” he added.
So far, the Trump administration’s approach has done little to dispel Tehran’s distrust. The president’s reported alternative is the Islamic revolution, where leader Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic revolution, firmly ruled out negotiations with the United States as long as Washington maintains current “maximum pressure.” Just a week after the leader, a visit to the occupied territories doesn’t seem to be any more promising. ” Strategy.
Iranian analysts, including Mostafa Nafaji, warn that the strategy is not purely political and also has a military dimension that could be deployed in two stages. According to Nafaj, the first phase would aim to complement the US diplomatic and economic pressures and force Iran to negotiate terms favoring the West. This phase is expected to last for around three months, and will use military action as a tool to change Tehran’s political stance.
If this early stage does not provide the desired results, the likelihood of a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities increases. In this scenario, Israel, which is projected within 3-9 months, took a more active role in military escalation with full support from the US.
So far, pressures from us and Israel have failed to change Iran’s position, as reflected in the leader’s recent statements. In addition to this, the report suggests that Washington will present a list of requests that have been much removed from Tehran’s expectations within the negotiation framework, further reducing the likelihood of reaching an agreement under current conditions. I’m doing it.
The Trump administration’s approach does little to dispel uncertainty in Tehran. On the one hand, the president and his team argue that they are not trying to destabilise the Iranian government, and that their aim is to secure nuclear deals rather than relying on military action. A recent statement that an agreement with Iran appears to reinforce the position of an attack on the country. But at the same time, the White House has imposed new sanctions and maintains an ambiguous attitude towards Iran’s nuclear program.
This dual approach, coupled with Iran’s deep distrust of Washington’s intentions, further complicates the prospects for new negotiations. Second, leaders began to adopt a more determined attitude in response to a combination of threats and contradictions from the US.
Tehran claims that he is willing to negotiate but has no pressure and is not forced to make concessions on other sensitive issues such as nuclear programs and missile development. However, the US and E3 countries (France, Germany and the UK) may try to use the current situation to push for an agreement that calls for Iran to dramatically dismantle its uranium-enriched infrastructure. Enrichment threshold required for military use.
In response to these demands, Iran has asserted its legitimate right to develop nuclear technology. Since 1968, as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Tehran has argued that its nuclear program is within the legal framework of the agreement and complies with international regulations. The Islamic Republic is calling Article IV of the NPT. This recognizes the rights of all states to develop and share nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. At the same time, it dismisses accusations of pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, pointing out that such allegations are part of a broader strategy to politicize technical issues.
Beyond legal spheres, Iran’s nuclear policy is deeply tied to its revolutionary principles, such as independence, self-sufficiency and territorial sovereignty. From Tehran’s perspective, the country’s long history of foreign interventions has reinforced the need for independent security and defense strategies in which nuclear technology plays a key role.
Within this framework, Iran’s attitude is also shaped by the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khamenei in 2003. This expressly prohibits the development and use of nuclear weapons. However, potential military attacks on Iranian territory could strengthen the status of people within the government who advocate for revision of this doctrine. Iran’s strategic circles emphasize that the country already has the technical capabilities to produce nuclear weapons, and that the only deterrent factor is the political decisions of its leaders.
For now, Ayatollah Khamenei appears to be determined to support his fatwa. Nevertheless, if Iran recognizes an existential threat, its nuclear doctrine could cause unprecedented changes. And, given the strategic, hardened positions under the giant mountain, we cannot guarantee that attacks on Iranian nuclear sites will destroy them.
For the US, pressure and attacks will undoubtedly lead it to a destination with Iran, which they had not pursued in the first place.