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. 

President Donald Trump announced Saturday evening that the U.S. had carried out military strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites earlier Saturday.

“We have completed our very successful attack on three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,” Trump announced on Truth Social. “All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.”

The three sites, particularly Fordow, are deeply entrenched underground, and analysts believe that Israel lacked the capacity to destroy the Fordow site on its own. Fox News host Sean Hannity said that Trump told him that the U.S. had dropped six bunker-busting bombs on Fordow and launched a total of 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles from U.S. submarines at Natanz and Esfahan. He said that all three facilities were destroyed completely.

The strikes come before the end of the two-week period that the Trump administration had provided for a decision on potential strikes. 

In brief remarks from the White House, Trump said that the strikes were a “spectacular military success” and that the sites had been “completely and totally obliterated.”

Trump threatened further military action if Iran does not agree to make peace, warning Tehran that there are many other targets the U.S. can still hit “in a matter of minutes.” 

“If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier,” Trump said. “This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.”

He also highlighted Iran’s four-decade history of attacks against U.S. personnel.

“I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu,” Trump continued. “We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel.”

Dana Stroul, the research director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East under the Biden administration, told Jewish Insider that the “failed talks in Europe on Friday likely convinced [Trump] that diplomacy, at least in the short term, was futile.”

“The threat of a conventional war with the United States is what Iran’s leaders presumably fear most,” Stroul said. “For the past week of Israel’s operations, the Iranians have only responded with ballistic missiles and drones aimed at Israel. The real risk now is that Iranian leadership expands the scope of their retaliation, including aiming missiles at the U.S. and its partners, militia attacks on US forces, and potentially the targeting of energy infrastructure throughout the Middle East.”

She said that the “most pressing strategic question is whether US strikes make negotiations with the Iranian regime more or less likely, and whether Iran’s leaders are now more convinced of their need for a nuclear weapon or are finally willing to make concessions.”

Andrea Stricker, the deputy director of the nonproliferation and biodefense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JI that further operations of some kind will likely be necessary to eliminate stockpiles of highly enriched uranium in tunnels at Esfahan.

She said that could entail more strikes, or a U.S. or Israeli commando operation to recover the nuclear material.

So far, the strikes are being supported by most congressional Republicans, while most Democrats are opposed, with many saying that the action was unconstitutional given that Congress did not authorize it.

“The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing ‘death to America’ and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs’ misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said. “As we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm’s way.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said the strikes “should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says.”

“The President gave Iran’s leader every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement,” Johnson continued. “The President’s decisive action prevents the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants “Death to America,” from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet. This is America First policy in action.”

Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: ”This war is Israel’s war not our war, but Israel is one of our strongest allies and is disarming Iran for the good of the world,” adding that the strike would “put an end to [Iran’s] ambitions” of destroying Israel and killing all Jews and could only have been carried out by the United States.

“This is not the start of a forever war. There will not be American boots on the ground in Iran,” Risch added, pushing back on concerns that anti-interventionists on both sides of the aisle have raised about a potential strike. “This was a precise, limited strike, which was necessary and by all accounts was very successful. As President Trump has stated, now is the time for peace.”

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also praised Trump’s decision and said, “We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east.”

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), one of the most pro-Israel congressional Democrats, said “this was the correct move” by Trump and said he’s “grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.”

Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), another outspoken Israel supporter, said, “The world can achieve peace in the Middle East, or it can accept a rogue nuclear weapons program—but it cannot have both.”

“The decisive destruction of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant prevents the dangerous spread of nuclear weapons in the world’s most combustible region,” Torres continued. “No one truly committed to nuclear nonproliferation should mourn the fall of Fordow.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who was championing legislation in the House aiming to block U.S. military action against Iran, condemned the strike as unconstitutional in a X post which was re-shared by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), another isolationist House Republican, similarly questioned the strike’s constitutionality.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), who is leading the Senate version of Massie’s resolution, asserted that the American people are “overwhelmingly opposed” to the prospect of war with Iran and suggested that the strikes were not necessary to set back Iran’s nuclear program.

“What made Trump recklessly decide to rush and bomb today?” Kaine continued. “Horrible judgment. I will push for all Senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said Trump had “dramatically increased” the risk of war in the Middle East and endangered U.S. troops.

“President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization … and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East,” Jeffries said, adding that the administration must explain its decision to the country and brief Congress.

“Donald Trump shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action,” Jeffries continued.

Several House Democrats called for Congress to immediately return to Washington to vote on Massie’s resolution.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the strikes were a “clear violation of the Constitution” and that it is “impossible to know at this stage whether this operation accomplished its objectives.”

“We also don’t know if this will lead to further escalation in the region and attacks against our forces, events that could easily pull us even deeper into a war in the Middle East,” Himes said.

Rep. Sean Casten (D-IL) called the strikes “an unambiguous impeachable offense.”

Among the more surprising cheerleaders for President Donald Trump’s diplomacy with Iran were several progressive foreign policy analysts who had advised former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Kamala Harris. 

Now, many of those same voices — including Phil Gordon, Harris’ national security advisor who would likely have stayed in the role if she had been elected president last year — are expressing skepticism about Israel’s preemptive strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites, and urging Trump to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cool it.

“I would have found it too risky to initiate military force with all that that could unleash,” Gordon told Jewish Insider on Friday. His approach would have been “to try to get an enduring, diplomatically-negotiated nuclear arrangement that prevented Iran from being able to get a nuclear weapon.” 

If he were advising Harris, or another Democratic president, Gordon would’ve wanted “to try to get that accomplished without having used this military action,” he said. 

Gordon also argued that Trump was manipulated into supporting Israel’s strikes by Netanyahu, even as Trump celebrated Israel’s killing of Iranian hardliners, noting that several of Trump’s senior advisors have urged restraint rather than intervention.

“His supporters did not put him in place to get involved in the conflict in the Middle East,” Gordon said. “A lot of his advisors … served in Iraq or are against U.S. military interventions in the Middle East. We know where Vance is in terms of intervention. The Tucker Carlson view, Don Jr. I think Trump really wanted to avoid military conflict and negotiate a deal and be the guy who got a better deal than Obama.” 

Ilan Goldenberg, who served as an Iran advisor at the Pentagon in the Obama administration and who advised Harris on Middle East issues during her 2024 campaign, told JI that Trump should try to encourage parties in the region to tone it down. 

“I think the appropriate position for the United States to be in now is the role of de-escalator,” said Goldenberg, now the senior vice president and chief policy officer at J Street. “The better option, the less risky option that had more good outcomes, was the diplomatic option. Unfortunately, it’s not the way it went. So now we have to see.” 

J Street released a statement on Friday calling for an end to the “cycle of retaliation and escalation,” and for a return to diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran. 

Both Gordon and Goldenberg questioned Israel’s end game in the strikes, which killed several senior Iranian military leaders and destroyed an above-ground uranium enrichment site at Natanz. 

“It definitely has set back the timetable for Iran’s nuclear capacity, but it hasn’t eliminated it, and we also don’t know what happens in terms of retaliation. We’d like to think and hope that Iran has been deterred and won’t respond in a way that we can’t handle,” Gordon said. “So far, so good, but we’re only on the first day, so there were real risks of doing it this way. And that’s why I would have sought, if at all possible, to do it a different way.” 

Goldenberg, who said the most important next step in stopping the violence is for the U.S. to help Israel defend against Iran’s retaliation, said he is unsure whether the Israeli success will turn into a long-term victory.

“The Israelis are incredibly good operationally, but they have challenges sometimes translating that into a strategic kind of sustainable victory, as opposed to just continuing to fight,” said Goldenberg. “What’s the end state here? What are you trying to do? Or is the objective to just be in constant conflict?”

Still, even as they said a return to diplomacy is the best way to move forward, both Gordon and Goldenberg acknowledged that Israel’s Friday attack on Iran had so far gone well for Israel.

“It is a remarkable display of Israeli military and intelligence capabilities,” said Gordon. 

“I think in the immediate [term], it had a lot of success. Very impressive operationally,” Goldenberg noted. 

Trump said in Truth Social posts on Friday that Iran could have a “second chance” at a deal, and that they should return to the negotiating table “before there is nothing left.” 

Goldenberg agrees — and he thinks Israel needs to hear from Trump that they can’t attack Iran forever.

“Make clear to the Iranians that there’s still a deal on the table. We’re willing to negotiate,” Goldenberg said. “And at the same time, make clear to the Israelis, there are limits to this. We can’t see this get out of control.”