Israel’s influential minister of strategic affairs, Ron Dermer, resigned from his post on Tuesday, three years after assuming the role.

“This government will be defined both by the attack on October 7th and by the prosecution of the two-year, seven-front, war that followed,” Dermer, widely regarded as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s closest advisor, wrote in his resignation letter.

Israeli media had reported for months that Dermer’s departure was expected.

Dermer noted that he had initially promised his family to work in the position for two years only, but extended his tenure twice, with their blessing, “first to work with you [Netanyahu] to remove the existential threat posed by Iran’s military nuclear capability and second to end the war in Gaza on Israel’s terms and bring our hostages home.” 

Dermer has led Israel’s ceasefire and hostage-release negotiations since February. He is expected to stay on as Netanyahu’s envoy to continue handling the future of the Gaza portfolio, political sources recently told Jewish Insider. U.S.-born and a former Israeli ambassador to Washington, Dermer has long played a central role in managing Israel’s relationship with the U.S.

“What the future holds for me, I do not know. But I do know this: No matter what I do, I will continue to do my part to help secure the future of the Jewish people,” Dermer said.

Jewish Insider’s Lahav Harkov contributed to this report.

In a wide-ranging interview, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer connected Israel’s strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s opposition to the U.S.’ 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, saying that President Donald Trump wouldn’t have pulled out of the deal during his first administration without that precedent.

“I believe that what Iran’s strategy was [before Oct. 7] is to surround Israel with this ring of fire,” including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and militias in Syria and Iraq. “And this is another reason why I was so opposed to the nuclear deal that was done in 2015,” Dermer said in the first installment of his interview on Dan Senor’s “Call Me Back” podcast, which dropped on Monday.

“And by the way, the attack [on Iran’s nuclear facilities] that happens now does not happen if Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn’t show up and confront that deal then. People don’t make the connection. I do, because I’ve lived it every day since then,” Dermer continued. “I don’t see Trump withdrawing if Netanyahu doesn’t take a stand, because no one’s going to be more Catholic than the pope, and no one’s going to be more pro-Israel than the prime minister of Israel.”

Dermer said he and Netanyahu began discussing striking Iran shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terror attacks on Israel. “I don’t know if it was Oct. 8, Oct, 9, Oct. 10, but I remember having conversations with [Netanyahu] early that we need to turn the tables on this, but ultimately the address is Iran. If you don’t deal with Iran and you don’t deal with its support for the proxies, then what is the impact you’re going to have if they can just sort of rebuild this stuff over and over and over again?”

“I think we have removed that threat [of the Iranian nuclear program] for the foreseeable future, particularly if we do the things that we need to do now in the aftermath” of the Israeli and U.S. strikes, Dermer continued, without elaborating.

Senor asked Dermer about leaks to the press prior to Israel’s war with Iran that portrayed a strained relationship between Trump and Netanyahu, with the two leaders reportedly at odds over whether to pursue military action or diplomacy with Tehran. “How much of it was orchestrated to throw everyone off, especially the Iranians?” Senor asked.

“I will tell you as somebody who’s been involved at the highest levels of the U.S.-Israel relationship …. [for] around 15 years, you’ve never had a level of coordination and cooperation that you had,” Dermer replied. 

“I don’t know if it was the Monday or Tuesday [before the strikes began], there was a conversation between the prime minister and the president. And 50 years from now, people will say that was one of the best conversations ever between a prime minister and a president,” he continued. After press reports arose saying it was a “really tough call,” Dermer said he asked Netanyahu, “Did we leak that to make it look like it was a terrible call? He’s like, ‘No, no. Somebody else came and just assumed that this was a very, very terrible call’ … But we didn’t say anything at the time, because we thought it would help us, ultimately, with what we were trying to do.”

On the ceasefire negotiations with Hamas, which are ongoing in Doha, Qatar, Demer laid out the Israeli objective of removing Hamas from power in Gaza. 

“I think the question is, how do you demilitarize Gaza and end Hamas’ political rule?” Dermer said, noting that  “to kill every single Hamas terrorist in Gaza … would require us to take over everything and to stay there indefinitely. That’s not what the goal is. Hamas exists today in Judea and Samaria, in the West Bank … But they don’t control it.”

“Now, it might be that Hamas is willing to give up de jure control, and they say, ‘Well, somebody else will take out the trash, but we’ll continue to have this militia again.’ That’s something that’s not acceptable,” the minister continued.

In reference to the proposal under consideration — which includes a 60-day temporary ceasefire during which time around half of the remaining hostages would gradually be returned and the parties would begin to negotiate terms for a permanent ceasefire — Dermer said the question remains to be answered: “Can [Israel’s] minimal security requirements, can our minimum hit the maximum that they [Hamas] are capable of living with?” 

“And we’re not going to know that until you have that engagement. And that’s the engagement that you need to have in the 60 days,” he said. “Because is there only one answer for what Gaza can look like the day after? No, I think there are several potential answers of what could happen. I worked on this last year, I mean, very quietly, of a potential plan that could work. And we will continue to work on it now.”