Israel has not asked U.S. to join offensive against Iran’s nuclear facilities, Hanegbi says

Knesset
National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi and Chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Yuli Edelstein on November 13, 2023.
Iran’s underground Fordow nuclear site is a key target in the current operation against the Islamic Republic, Israel’s national security advisor, Tzachi Hanegbi, said on Tuesday.
“This operation will not conclude without a strike on the Fordow nuclear facility,” Hanegbi told Israel’s Channel 12 News.
The Fordow facility is home to thousands of centrifuges, crucial to Iran’s weapons-grade uranium enrichment program, and is located 295 feet underground beneath a mountain. Israel is thought to have neither the munitions nor the aircraft to destroy it from the air, while the U.S. does.
Washington, however, has yet to make clear if it will take part in the offensive on Iran, though it has shot down Iranian missiles headed for Israel in the last few days. Hanegbi said that he does not believe the Trump administration has made a decision on the matter yet.
Hanegbi denied that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had asked the U.S. to join Israel in bombing Iranian nuclear sites: “We didn’t ask and we won’t ask. We will leave it to the Americans to make such dramatic decisions about their own security. We think only they can decide.”
“We are very careful and the prime minister is very careful not to ask for anything the Americans do not think is in their interest,” he said.
When the IDF presented its plan to the Israeli Security Cabinet a year ago, Hanegbi said, it was for the operation against Iran to be carried out by Israel alone. He called the plan “totally blue and white.”
However, Israel did ask the U.S. for help with its defense, because it has the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system, he said.
Hanegbi said that the U.S. is not only committed to protecting Israeli lives, but to the hundreds of thousands of American citizens living in Israel.
As to reports that President Donald Trump rejected an Israeli plan to kill Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Hanegbi said they are “fake from the land of fake.”
“We don’t ask for permission from the U.S., and the U.S. doesn’t expect us to share [our plans] with them,” Hanegbi said.
Regime change is not Israel’s goal, the national security advisor said.
“I think every sane person, not only in Israel, would be happy to see this loathsome, murderous, cruel regime fall and be replaced by peace-loving people. Can we set that as a goal for ourselves? No,” Hanegbi said.
While Hanegbi acknowledged that “the best way to remove the nuclear threat is for there to be a regime that does not want a nuclear weapon,” he said “that is not something we can attain kinetically right now.”
In addition, Hanegbi said the mullahs’ regime could fall as a result of “the process in which Iran lost its grip on the Shiite axis that was crazed in wanting to harm Israel,” but added that “it is not reasonable to think it will happen in the coming days.”
Hanegbi also expressed doubts that Iran would negotiate its surrender soon and said Israel did not receive any messages that Iran wants to hold talks to end the war.
“The Iranians are a proud people,” he said. “I don’t think they will wave the white flag at the beginning of the campaign.”
As such, he added, “we will continue with our plan. It will take time. We have many varied targets.”
Hanegbi said that Iranian gas fields and its energy sector “do not have immunity,” and that Israel struck an oil refinery used by the military within the last day.
Iran has “a strategic goal to strike our energy facilities,” he said. “They want to cause chaos in Israel. When they hit refineries in Haifa, they know what they’re doing.”
Biden’s former national security advisor said, ‘on this, unlike on many other issues, on foreign policy, I seem to be on the same page as Donald Trump’

White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan
Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan praised President Donald Trump for his strategy of engagement with Iran on their nuclear weapons program and predicted that the Trump administration would reach a deal that “is going to look and feel pretty similar to the” 2015 nuclear deal reached by former President Barack Obama.
Sullivan made the comments on the Unholy Podcast, hosted by Channel 12 anchor Yonit Levi and The Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland, when asked how he views Trump’s embrace of diplomacy with Iran after withdrawing from the Obama-era deal in his first term. Sullivan, who helped negotiate the 2015 agreement before serving as former President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, noted that Trump referred to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as “the worst deal in human history.”
“The irony is not lost on me that now they are negotiating something that, in its broad elements, is going to look and feel pretty similar to the JCPOA. I’m not talking to anyone in the Trump administration about this. I don’t know of them engaging with other of the architects or negotiators from the Obama era, in part because, while they’re following some of the blueprint of the JCPOA, I think from a marketing perspective, they want to distance themselves and say [that] whatever the Trump deal is is going to be so much better than the Obama deal. I will find it very interesting to watch them make that case,” Sullivan said.
The former national security adviser said he was monitoring public developments with regard to how the uranium enrichment issue was addressed in the ongoing negotiations. Sullivan noted that the issue “has both hung up the negotiations and created this big fight, frankly, within the Republican party.”
Citing the risk of the “potential for retaliation by Iran against both Israel and the United States in the region,” Sullivan said that, “I’ve always thought that a diplomatic resolution that puts Iran’s nuclear program in a box is the right way to proceed. And on this, unlike on many other issues, on foreign policy, I seem to be on the same page as Donald Trump.”
Asked about Trump’s decision to not stop in Israel during his recent Middle East visit and if his overall approach to extracting concessions from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu served as evidence that the Biden administration should have taken a firmer stance with the Israelis, Sullivan argued there were commonalities between Trump and Biden’s approach to the Gulf states.
“Donald Trump likes peace and he likes deals. That’s his basic approach to the region. And he looks at Bibi and he says, ‘Is Bibi going to give me peace or deals? No. Is MBS [Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman]? Yes. Is MBZ [UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan]? Yes. Even, are the Iranians? Maybe. So are the Houthis, maybe they’ll give me a deal.’ So really I think what he’s doing is saying, ‘Can Bibi be a partner in the things I’m trying to accomplish here, deescalation and deals?’ And since he’s kind of concluded the answer is no, he’s just going to go off and largely do that himself,” Sullivan explained.
“That means cutting a deal with the Houthis that essentially still leaves the Houthis in a position where they’re attacking Israel and saying they’re going to hold Israeli link shipping at risk. It has him potentially doing a deal with Iran, despite misgivings from Israel. And of course, it has him pursuing these massive economic deals with Saudi and the UAE,” he continued.
Sullivan argued that the Biden administration “worked to pave the way for a lot of the strengthened relations with countries in the Gulf,” pointing to partnerships they made with the Saudis and Emiratis.
“We had a different approach on some of this AI and tech stuff, particularly limitations around numbers of chips that would go there. But in substance, the idea that there would be a technology partnership between the UAE and the United States, between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, that was a hallmark of the Biden approach as well. And so I don’t see a huge divergence there,” he said.
Asked about the ramifications of Israel potentially striking Iran’s nuclear program without Trump’s approval, Sullivan dismissed the notion that Netanyahu would defy the current president.
“I’m pretty skeptical that Prime Minister Netanyahu would act contrary to Trump’s wishes on this front. I think it is highly unlikely that you would see an Israeli prime minister order an attack against the express urging of an American president, particularly this American president in this time, particularly given that the U.S. is engaged in diplomacy with Iran to try to get to some kind of deal,” Sullivan said.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
National Security Advisor Michael Waltz speaks on a panel at the Hill and Valley Forum at the U.S. Capitol on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Good Friday morning.
In today’s Daily Kickoff, we detail Mike Waltz’s ouster yesterday as national security advisor and his nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and scoop the hiring of Martin Marks to be the Trump administration’s Jewish liaison. We also report on Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin’s comments at the Jewish Democratic Council of America’s summit yesterday, and report on a call from Sen. Richard Blumenthal for the Trump administration to reverse its recent dismissals of members of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. Also in today’s Daily Kickoff: Zach Witkoff, Josh Radnor and Netta Barzilai.
For less-distracted reading over the weekend, browse this week’s edition of The Weekly Print, a curated print-friendly PDF featuring a selection of recent Jewish Insider and eJewishPhilanthropy stories, including: Bill Cassidy leans in to fight antisemitism as chair of key Senate committee; Songs of the fallen set the tone for Yom HaZikaron in Israel; and ‘The Surge’ continues: JFNA survey finds a third of Jews more engaged now than pre-Oct. 7. Print the latest edition here.
What We’re Watching
- Nuclear talks between Iran and the U.S. that had been expected to take place this weekend in Rome have been postponed. The State Department said the talks had not been confirmed, while Iran said that Tehran and Washington, along with Oman, which is facilitating the talks, had decided to postpone the fourth round of negotiations over “logistical and technical reasons.”
- The McCain Institute’s two-day Sedona Forum kicks off today in Arizona.
- The Zionist Rabbinic Coalition National Conference begins on Sunday in Washington.
- And on the West Coast, the Milken Institute Global Conference kicks off on Sunday in Los Angeles.
What You Should Know
A QUICK WORD WITH JI’S JOSH KRAUSHAAR
Call it the horseshoe theory in action: The senatorial tag team of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY), representing the far left and far right of their caucuses, joined forces this week to scuttle bipartisan legislation designed to crack down on campus antisemitism by codifying the widely accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Jewish discrimination into law.
Sanders proposed several “poison pill” amendments to the Antisemitism Awareness Act during a committee meeting — condemnation of the destruction in Gaza, protection for college students’ free speech rights and rights for universities — that received unanimous Democratic support in the committee vote, as well as backing from Paul. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) also voted for two of the Sanders-sponsored amendments. A fourth amendment by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) opposing deportation and revocation of foreign students’ visas also passed with Paul’s support.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act has long been a major priority for Jewish leaders, especially with discrimination against Jews on the rise, but is facing continued hurdles for passage because of growing antagonism from both parties’ extreme flanks.
The legislation, which passed the House with a substantial 320-vote majority last year, was opposed by only 21 House Republicans and 70 House Democrats, though opposition has grown since then.
Last year, then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) didn’t bring the legislation to the Senate floor for a vote out of concern it would expose divisions over the issue in the party. A number of progressive Democrats oppose the mainstream IHRA definition of antisemitism, arguing the definition is too broad because it considers certain criticisms of Israel to be antisemitic.
On the far right, there was growing discomfort over free speech concerns. Most prominently, a smattering of right-wing Republicans, including Paul, and prominent influencers such as Tucker Carlson raised objections because the IHRA definition tags the claim that Jews killed Jesus as antisemitic. In cooperation with Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS), who shared similar concerns, the committee added language explicitly specifying that First Amendment protected speech, religion, press, assembly and petition rights are protected under the legislation.
The retreat on what, on paper, should have been an easy political win for both parties is just one small example of the growing influence of the populist, anti-establishment grassroots — fueled by voters increasingly turning to unconventional and unreliable sources for information.
As a result, on issues ranging from hostility to mainstream foreign policy views to distrust of traditional medicine to anger at Wall Street, the far left and far right of both parties are forming alliances of convenience.
Just scan the daily headlines for examples of an upside-down politics: Within the Trump administration, the reassignment of national security adviser Mike Waltz to Turtle Bay and the recent purge of experienced officials on the National Security Council at the recommendation of a far-right conspiracy theorist is backed by an isolationist faction that wants to upend the bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matt Brooks, in a notable warning this week, said anti-Israel views are beginning to seep into the Republican party as part of a “woke right” whose worldview often overlaps with the far left.
Meanwhile, Democratic grassroots’ enthusiasm and excitement for Sanders’ rallies with left-wing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY), as moderates struggle to put forward an alternative vision for the party, is a cautionary sign that progressive party activists are still empowered despite the political hole they dug for their party. The fact that Sanders-championed resolutions to block arm sales to Israel received 15 (of 47) Democratic votes in the Senate last month is a sign of how much the party has changed in recent years.
As Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA), a 36-year-old progressive House Democrat, said on CNN Thursday: “There is a new generation of Republicans and Democrats who want to think about some of the things that we have been taking for granted as core tenets of our foreign policy.”
It’s no coincidence that antisemitic views are on the rise within both parties, as a result of this collapse of institutional authority. It shouldn’t be a surprise, then, it’s becoming difficult to pass bipartisan legislation to fight the oldest hatred.
RELOCATING
Trump nominates Mike Waltz as U.N. ambassador

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he was nominating Mike Waltz, his national security advisor, as ambassador to the United Nations, and removing him from his current role. In the interim, Trump added in a Truth Social post, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will serve as national security advisor while holding his diplomatic role, Jewish Insider’s Matthew Kassel reports.
Surprise shuffle: The announcement came amid multiple reports that Waltz was expected to be ousted from his role, in the first major shakeup of the administration. His deputy advisor, Alex Wong, a fellow traditional conservative, was also expected to leave the National Security Council, sources told JI. Waltz, a former Florida congressman and Green Beret, has been on precarious footing since he accidentally added a journalist to a non-secure messaging app in which top administration officials discussed sensitive plans for a military operation in Yemen.
Bonus: The Atlantic does a deep dive into Waltz’s brief tenure in the Trump administration, citing the “dysfunction” within the National Security Council that predated the “Signalgate” incident.