Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter told a gathering of American Jewish leaders on Wednesday that the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz had “destroyed” the sites.

Leiter also laid out the timeline of U.S. and Israeli coordination on the strikes, which he said stretched back to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington in February, though he said it only became clear in the days before Israel began its strikes in Iran that the U.S. was likely to participate. And he argued that any deal with Iran must include, as a precondition, that Iran no longer seek the elimination of the Jewish state.

“There’s this little debate out there, you get into the etymology of the English language,” Leiter quipped, addressing ongoing questions about the extent of the success of U.S. operations and by how long they had delayed Iran’s nuclear program. “What is the difference between ‘elimination’ and ‘obliteration,’ ‘setting them back for years’ [and] ‘destruction.’”

Leiter did not delve into specifics of his assessment or what it was based on.

The comments, at a gathering organized by the Jewish Federations of North America and Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, came after the leak of a preliminary, reportedly low-confidence Defense Intelligence Agency assessment indicating that the strikes had only set back Iran’s nuclear program by a matter of months. Other reports indicated that some of Iran’s nuclear material and centrifuges may have survived the operations.

The Trump administration forcefully denounced the DIA assessment, insisted that the nuclear program has been fully destroyed and published an Israeli assessment indicating that the Iranian program had been set back further.

Leiter addressed the Senate Republican Conference over lunch on Wednesday, and delivered a similar assessment.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the No. 2 Senate Republican, told Jewish Insider that Leiter said the attacks had been “very successful.” 

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) told reporters that Leiter said the operations had set Iran’s nuclear program back by “years.”

Leiter also told the audience of Jewish leaders that Netanyahu had presented Israeli plans to President Donald Trump in the Oval Office during his first visit in February. Subsequent reports had indicated that Trump vetoed the plan, at the time.

The Israeli envoy said, “We laid out in front of the administration what the possibilities were. We did not ask for a green light. We made it very clear that this is existential, that this is 1938. The only difference is that in 1938, we were dependent. We were helpless.”

Leiter said Israeli officials had presented Israel’s capabilities and plans, and the potential options for working with the U.S.

“We moved ahead, first with minimal planning together, then with extensive planning together,” Leiter said. “It wasn’t until a few days before we launched Operation Rising Lion that it was clear that the president was moving in the direction of making sure that this strike to eliminate the annihilationist threat to the State of Israel was something the United States would participate in, in full.”

The Israeli ambassador also said that Israel was at the “cusp of the possibility of taking out the Iranian regime” but said, “we’re not in the business of regime change. Regime change has to come bottom-up, not top-down. We can’t force it.”

He said that, if the U.S. and Iran agree to a deal going forward, there should be “an elemental demand that Iran first say it is not going to pursue the annihilation of the State of Israel, the Jewish people.”

Leiter said he would also be meeting on Wednesday with a group of six Democrats who had supported efforts to withhold arms from Israel.

“I tell them, ‘Look, I’ll go into the lion’s den. Just invite me. You want to talk? I’ll talk,’” Leiter explained. “I know that I’m going in front of the firing squad. But that’s my job. I’m going to make the case because I know that our case is the most justified case in the annals of human history.”

Looking at the Middle East broadly, Leiter said Israel has “changed history” after Oct. 7, 2023, having degraded Hamas and Hezbollah and helped to bring about the fall of the Assad regime in Syria.

“We have someone now [in Syria] who’s at least saying the right things, who’s playing the right music,” Leiter said, a notable turn from the Israeli government’s initial skepticism and hostility toward the government led by President Ahmad al-Sharaa, a former jihadist. “We don’t know where it’s going to go, we have to be cautious, but it’s moving in the right direction.”

Addressing the murder of two Israeli Embassy staffers at the Capital Jewish Museum, Leiter emphasized the intrinsic ties between the Jewish people and Israel, and said, “at the core of this murderous, annihilationist antisemitism is the rejection of the very right of the Jewish people to have a right to sovereignty. You cannot fight antisemitism without fighting anti-Zionism.”

He said that the Jewish community cannot let antisemites — “Candace Owens or somebody from the other side, whatever it is” — dictate to them what Judaism is or “disembowel Judaism from Zionism.” 

“Don’t go down the slippery slope. Don’t go down. We are not an apartheid state. We are not genocidal murderers,” Leiter said. “My son would be alive today if what they’re accusing us of doing, we do. We don’t starve people and we don’t do ethnic cleansing, and we’ve lost countless soldiers because of the approach we take to warfare.”

Leiter’s son died in combat in Gaza.

When Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter agreed last week to a major interview with Iran International, the biggest independent Iranian news outlet in the world, the geopolitical status of the region looked very different than it did when Leiter sat down with anchor Fardad Farahzad on Tuesday morning at the National Press Club in Washington. 

What was billed as a candid conversation with Leiter, where he would answer questions directly from Iranians curious about Israel’s approach to military strikes in Iran, turned into a newsy postmortem on the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, which had shakily come to a close just hours earlier with a ceasefire brokered by President Donald Trump and the Qataris. 

Leiter touted Israel’s military victories but did not offer a full endorsement of the ceasefire — and asked whether he was surprised by Trump’s announcement on Tuesday night, he demurred: “I came to Washington on Jan. 27, and there hasn’t been one day where I haven’t been surprised,” Leiter quipped.

“I think we saw it coming, because we accomplished the vast majority of our goals, our military goals, and that’s diminishing to the point of elimination the path to a nuclear bomb and proliferation of ballistic missiles,” said Leiter. 

In 12 days, Israel had “decimated [Iran’s] capacity to inflict tremendous damage on Israel,” Leiter continued. When pressed by Farahzad whether that meant Israel had eliminated Iran’s nuclear program, Leiter’s message was less straightforward.

“Eliminated is a big word. Obliterated is a big word. We can’t get into … what, exactly, ‘obliterated’ means,” said Leiter. (Trump said in a Truth Social post on Sunday that “obliteration is an accurate word.”) 

While the details of how thoroughly Israel had damaged Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs are still somewhat uncertain, the fact that Israel had achieved great military success in Iran in less than two weeks was not disputed. 

Instead, much of the conversation featured Leiter grappling with the limits of Israel’s capabilities in Iran. As barbaric and evil as Israel finds Iran’s regime, Leiter reiterated that regime change is not on the table for Israel. 

“There are few things that unite Israelis, but change in Iran is one of them,” said Leiter. “We want regime change. We’re certainly going to support it in every way we can. But militarily? No. War cannot bring regime change. It doesn’t work.” 

Farahzad read questions that had been sent in by Iranian viewers and called on several Iranians in the audience. Almost every one of them asked some version of the same question: Now that there is a ceasefire, Iranians are afraid of what will come next for them. The mullahs remain in power, weakened and wounded. What will they do to the people of Iran? How can the U.S. and Israel leave the Iranian people on their own and walk away? 

“Please help assuage the people of Iran’s mindset that the world leaders are saying stuff from both sides of their mouths, but they’re not taking into consideration that if the mullahs are left in power, it will do much more damage to the people of Iran,” one audience member pleaded with Leiter.

He acknowledged the precarity of this moment for the Iranian people, and their frustration at Israel’s inability to help them reach the outcome that many of them want. Instead, Leiter said he hoped Israel’s brief incursion into Iran, helped by the U.S., could spur Iranians who want a change in their country’s leadership to overcome their fears and bring about that change. 

“I don’t think I have an answer that’s fully going to satisfy you,” said Leiter. “The bandwidth in the United States right now for anything that even smacks of regime change — very small bandwidth. The ability for Israel to act [by] itself for regime change is extremely limited. What we are doing is, I think, advancing the cause of liberty to a great degree. In our efforts to secure ourselves, we are moving the region into a greater effort of liberty. It takes time.” 

Leiter presented a vision of a forward-looking Middle East, where the arc of history bends toward justice for the Iranian people, even if that arc is not a straight line.

“Based on history, I think we are moving towards an era of greater freedom, of greater people sovereignty. I think that that’s been helped, facilitated, by what we’ve done,” said Leiter. “We’re not in the position to make a long-term strategy for another country. Our long-term strategy is to stay alive.” 

Iranians now worry that they may be left paying a price for Israel’s victory, as the country’s hard-line rulers lash out. Leiter acknowledged that, but countered that it is not only Israel who can help the Iranian people. He called for Europe to step up.

“We’re not the only democracy in the world. Why is it that the chancellor of Germany says Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us? We’re a tiny, little country. Where’s Germany? Where’s England? England has a huge stake,” said Leiter. “Are we the world’s policeman? Please. I would say to the chancellor of Germany, ‘You’re absolutely right. We’re doing the dirty work for the world, but it’s about time that you helped us.’ And if they did, it would be a lot easier for the people of Iran.”

The interview will air several times this week on primetime in Iran, and to Iranian diasporas around the world. 

Historian Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. and Knesset Member in the 20th Knesset, discussed the lesser-known story of the U.S. the Balfour Declaration in a new podcast from The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 

Hosted by David Makovsky, the think tank’s Ziegler distinguished fellow and director of the project on Arab-Israel relations, “Decision Points,” a series of ten episodes, is the first podcast focused on the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship since the creation of the Jewish State. It features 30-minute conversations with key scholars and book authors. 

Oren: “[Former President] Woodrow Wilson was — if you read his memoirs, his remarks, those of his wife Edith in particular — sort of what you call a garden-variety antisemite. And yet… he went against the advice of all of his senior counselors, including his Secretary of State Robert Lansing, his personal political adviser Col. Edward House, who were adamantly opposed to Zionism… But it was Wilson’s restorationist worldview, which at this precise moment in history… met up with a peculiar geostrategic situation that [was] obtained in 1917,” pointing to the Communist revolution in Russia and the fear that the Germans would issue a similar declaration. 

Key relationship: The relationship between President Wilson and Louis Dembitz Brandeis, whom he respected when Wilson was governor of New Jersey, was key in persuading the U.S. to throw its support behind Arthur Balfour’s declaration when he visited the U.S. in 1917, Oren explains in detail. “Balfour was convinced that if he can get Wilson to sign on to this idea it will persuade the British government because they so need America in the [first World] War and he’s not getting anywhere with Wilson’s advisors. He needs to actually get into the Oval Office, he’s not getting there. He turns to Brandeis… Brandeis says to Balfour, ‘Don’t worry, I got it.’ He goes into the Oval Office, has maybe a half-an-hour meeting and walks out with Wilson’s approval of what would later become the Balfour Declaration. A pivotal moment in Middle Eastern history, Jewish history, and Israel history certainly, that short meeting between Brandeis and Wilson.” 

The audience: Makovsky tells Jewish Insider that people are now consuming information differently than in the past — the number of podcast listeners has increased sharply in 2019, according to a recent survey — “and I think it’s very important for those of us who care about U.S.-Israel relations to basically meet people where they are through new media. The idea of interviewing authors who have written about different periods of the U.S.-Israel relationship is that by the end of ten episodes, people will feel they have a better grasp of the trajectory, the arc of history when it comes to this relationship.”

Essential alliance: Talking about the Balfour Declaration, Makovsky said those events are a reminder of the idea of alliances: “We are at a time where people are saying that we could withdraw from the Middle East. We don’t really need allies. But you know, we saw this with al-Baghdadi too, that it ultimately takes a village, so to speak, of allies that made the capture possible. Zionism always believed in two ideas and did not see it as a contradiction. It believed in the idea of self-reliance, but also making sure that you have very good ties with the leading countries of the time, which [in 1917] are Britain and the United States. I think that was the key to Zionism’s success. And I think that is also good advice for the United States today that we need allies. We need the multipliers and having allies are critical or American influence in the Middle East and beyond.”