The United Nations this week elevated an Iranian official to a senior leadership role and publicly congratulated Tehran on the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution — moves that former Trump administration officials and Middle East policy analysts say reflect a troublingly conciliatory posture by the international body toward a regime accused of violently repressing its own people.

On Tuesday, the UN elected Abbas Tajik of the Islamic Republic of Iran as vice chair of its Commission for Social Development, a body tasked with advancing policies on poverty eradication, employment and social inclusion. The commission recently adopted resolutions focused on social justice, gender equality and combating gender-based violence — issues critics note remain acute inside Iran, where legal, social and cultural restrictions continue to limit women’s rights and political freedoms.

The following day, UN Secretary-General António Guterres congratulated Iran on the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution — the founding moment of the regime now facing widespread domestic unrest — weeks after authorities violently suppressed nationwide protests, imposed internet blackouts and oversaw a crackdown that, according to human rights groups, has resulted in thousands of deaths.

Guterres’ message was condemned by Israel’s Foreign Ministry, which posted on X that the gesture represented a “moral failure.”

“History will not remember your speeches. It will remember the regimes you chose to honor,” the statement read. “Sending congratulations to the Islamic Revolution regime — a state built on repression and terror — is not neutrality.”

Critics argue that the juxtaposition of congratulatory gestures and leadership appointments raises broader questions about institutional coherence and moral clarity — particularly as Iran continues to face internal unrest and international scrutiny.

Jason Greenblatt, a former White House Middle East envoy under President Donald Trump, told Jewish Insider that Iran’s latest promotion “tells you all you need to know about what the UN stands for.”

“It’s a bloated, broken, perhaps irredeemable system, and a colossal waste of money,” said Greenblatt.

Elliott Abrams, the former U.S. special representative for Iran during the first Trump administration, agreed, calling the UN a “morally bankrupt institution.” 

“The secretary general congratulating the Iranian regime just days after it murdered thousands of its citizens is another example,” said Abrams.  

However, Abrams also described the situation as more nuanced, noting that other parts of the UN have taken a firmer stance.

He pointed to a Jan. 26 resolution adopted by the UN Human Rights Council condemning the Iranian regime’s crackdown. During that session, Sara Hossain, chair of the U.N.’s fact-finding mission on Iran, described unfolding events in Tehran as “the deadliest crackdown against the Iranian people since the 1979 revolution.”

“The violent repression of the Iranian people doesn’t solve the country’s problems,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said at the time. “On the contrary, it creates conditions for further human rights violations, instability, and bloodshed.”

Still, several foreign policy analysts argued that the UN’s repeated elevation of Iran is misguided and at odds with the intended goals of the organization. David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, suggested the UN’s actions are a pattern of hypocrisy, noting that the organization has previously elected Tehran to committees despite its poor track record on human rights.

In 2023, Tehran was elected to the UN Committee on Disarmament and International Security. However it was during the same time that Iran was significantly accelerating its nuclear weapons program.

Tehran was also elected by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) in 2021 to the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), a group responsible for empowering women and promoting gender equality. Former Vice President Kamala Harris supported a U.S-led effort in 2022 to oust Iran from the committee, calling out its “denial of women’s rights and brutal crackdown on its own people.” 

Experts said the UN’s latest elevation of Tehran was not unexpected. Still, they argued that the continuation of this pattern is deeply troubling and reflects a broader institutional posture toward the Iranian regime.

“All of this would be laughably absurd if it wasn’t so actively counterproductive, both in terms of isolating Iran’s regime and, more fundamentally, what the UN supposedly stands for in founding documents like the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” said Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America.

Ruhe argued that the UN treats Iran as a “normal” member in “good standing,” creating what he described as a “dangerous equivalence between Tehran and Washington.”

“Promoting Iran to vice chair, and inviting its foreign minister to address the UN Human Rights Council, bestows a veneer of legitimacy on a regime that just brutally violated its citizens’ right to peaceful protest — a core right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” Ruhe said. “The UN is extending olive branches that rehabilitate Tehran at the exact moment it should be a pariah on par with North Korea.”

David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, similarly argued that the UN has become a venue for Iran and other authoritarian governments to “launder their human rights records.”

“People are noticing the absurdity of the UN secretary-general congratulating the Islamic Republic on the anniversary of seizing power because it comes one month after the Tehran regime killed as many as tens of thousands of protesters,” May said.

He added that “when the spotlight is not on Tehran’s tyranny, the United Nations treats Iran like any other country.”

“If the United Nations wants to escape its reputation as a den of dictators, it should disinvite Iran’s foreign minister from addressing the opening of the Human Rights Council on February 23,” May said. “Otherwise, this will provide another opportunity for a human rights abuser to mask its violations by launching attacks against the United States and its allies.”

Republicans lawmakers continued to dismiss this week the idea that a nuclear deal with Iran is achievable, despite comments by President Donald Trump over the weekend. 

Trump said that the talks with Iran, held in Oman last Friday, had been “very good,” that Tehran “wants to make a deal very badly” and that he is in “no rush” to move ahead. He also said that the Iranian demand that the talks be only focused on nuclear weapons “would be acceptable” — an apparent softening of the U.S. position that any potential agreement should also address Iran’s ballistic missile stockpiles and its support for regional terror proxies. The talks did not appear to touch on the Islamic Republic’s recent violent crackdown on nationwide protests.

Asked about Trump’s comments about a nuclear-only deal, Republicans largely dismissed the idea that any deal would actually be forthcoming.

“Iran’s not going to make a deal with us. They’re going to stall and re-stall to buy time, but they’re not going to make a deal,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) told Jewish Insider. “The ayatollah is [as] crazy as a bed bug. And he’s never going to give up any hope that he has of nuclear weapons. He’s never going to stop killing his people and drinking their blood out of a boot, and he’s never going to stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah.”

Kennedy predicted that military action is both necessary and forthcoming.

“You’re going to have to give them a curbstomping, but you don’t want to start a regional war doing it,” Kennedy continued. “My guess is that’s what the president is talking to [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio and the military guys with a bunch of their flags in their office [about] right now.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) agreed that the Iranian regime is not genuinely interested in making an agreement with the United States. 

“There won’t be a deal,” Scott told JI. “They’re not going to do a deal.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) said he hadn’t seen Trump’s comments but he does not “trust the word of the regime, at all.”

“They have not proven trustworthy with their word in the past, and so you have to have a way to be able to verify everything,” Lankford continued.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), meanwhile, told JI on Monday that he would delay a vote on a war powers resolution he introduced with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) blocking military action against Iran pending the ongoing talks with the regime. 

The resolution would theoretically be eligible for votes by the full Senate later this week, should Kaine and Paul wish to call it up.

The Virginia senator told JI that he and Paul are in discussions about timing for votes, and that he hasn’t yet made a decision on when to call the bill up.

“We have to check each day to see where [the talks] are. I don’t think calling it up in the middle of discussions that have some chance to it — that’s not the right time — but we’ll just see where we are,” Kaine said.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that he should be “very worried” ahead of planned nuclear talks, as the president weighs military action amid rising tensions and signs Tehran may be trying to revive its nuclear program.

“I would say he should be very worried, yeah, he should be,” Trump told NBC News when asked whether Khamenei should be concerned. “As you know, they are negotiating with us.”

U.S. and Iranian officials are slated to meet Friday in Oman, which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi confirmed Wednesday. Iran pushed for the discussions to be moved from Turkey and has insisted they remain limited to its nuclear program. The United States has sought to broaden the agenda to include Tehran’s ballistic missile capabilities and support for regional proxy groups.

Experts told Jewish Insider that despite upcoming discussions, military intervention remains on the table. On Tuesday a U.S. F-35 fighter jet shot down an Iranian drone near the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea. Later that day, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps attempted to stop and board a U.S.-flagged commercial tanker in the Strait of Hormuz before a U.S. destroyer intervened and escorted the vessel to safety.

During an interview on the Megyn Kelly Show, Vice President JD Vance said Wednesday that Trump “will try to achieve what he can through non-military means, but if he feels that the military option is the only option, he is going to choose that option.”

Several Arab and Muslim leaders reportedly lobbied the Trump administration not to walk away from the discussions after Iran demanded to change the venue and format. The administration “told the Arabs we will do the meeting if they insist,” one U.S. official told Axios, but added that they are “very skeptical.”

Satellite images released last week by Planet Labs PBC have also fueled speculation over whether Iran intends to restart its nuclear program after U.S. strikes on several sites in June. Trump confirmed that Iran was “thinking about starting a new site in a different part of the country,” but said the U.S. “found out about it.” 

“I said, ‘You do that, we’re going to do very bad things to you,’” Trump warned, stating that in the event Iran continued to pursue its nuclear ambitions, the U.S. would respond as it did before. “If they do, we’re going to send” B-2 bombers “right back and do the job again.”

Last month the president had cancelled meetings with Iranian officials and vowed on social media that Tehran would “pay a big price” for its violent crackdown on protesters in early January, stating that “help is on its way.” 

When pressed on whether the U.S. continues to back Iranian protesters, Trump said the administration’s position has not changed.

“We’ve had their backs,” said Trump. “If we didn’t take out” Iran’s nuclear sites, “we wouldn’t have peace in the Middle East, because the Arab countries could have never done that.”

Despite the Trump administration’s willingness to diplomatically engage with Iranian officials, leading Middle East experts told Jewish Insider on Monday that military action against Tehran still remains a very real possibility.

“I can’t tell you what I’m going to do,” President Donald Trump told reporters on Monday evening when asked about the threshold for an Iran strike. 

“We have a tremendous force going there [to the Middle East], just like we did in Venezuela,” said Trump. “I’d like to see a deal negotiated. But right now, we’re talking to [Iran] and if we could work something out, that’d be great. If we can’t, probably bad things will happen.”

White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi are expected to meet in Istanbul on Friday to discuss a potential new nuclear agreement, according to reports. Jared Kushner, who has played a key role in recent high-profile diplomatic negotiations, is also expected to attend, alongside the foreign ministers of Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, in the first meeting between the U.S. and Iran since U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities last June.

The planned talks come as the administration continues to exert pressure on Tehran — in response to Iran’s violent crackdown on protesters last month, Trump has publicly weighed the possibility of U.S. military intervention, ordering the movement of additional military assets into the region and issuing a series of stark warnings on social media indicating that U.S. forces are “ready, willing and able to rapidly fulfill [their] mission, with speed and violence” should a deal fail to be made. 

While the administration has emphasized diplomacy as its preferred path, analysts caution that negotiations do not necessarily signal that the U.S. will not strike.

“Military intervention remains likely in light of President Trump’s demonstrated willingness to use force and the U.S. military buildup in the region,” said Michael Koplow, chief policy officer at the Israel Policy Forum. “Given the gulf between the American and Iranian positions and the general hard-line position of the Iranian regime on nuclear issues, it is hard to tag a nuclear deal as a likely outcome.” 

Andrea Stricker, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JI that a strike does remain on the table. She said that a deal could be difficult to reach and the upcoming meeting in Istanbul is unlikely to yield meaningful results or concessions from Iran. 

“The planned meeting is likely a diplomatic box-checking exercise and smokescreen to enable a continued U.S. military buildup before Trump authorizes strikes,” Stricker said. “The administration’s demands that Iran abandon nuclear enrichment, cap its missile program, and halt support for regional proxies and terrorism, as well as stop executing its people, are nonstarters for the regime.”

Koplow said the administration’s “mixed signals” on whether it will seek diplomacy or take military action are likely “not a ruse or a diversion,” but instead a signal that Trump “has not actually made up his mind” and is “unsure what his end goal is.”

Jason Greenblatt, who served as White House Middle East envoy in the first Trump administration, asserted that “there’s no mixed signals,” arguing that the president’s messaging has been clear. 

“President Trump has made the choice clear: a real, enforceable deal that ends Iran’s nuclear and missile threats and protects the U.S., our allies, and the Iranian people — or decisive action,” said Greenblatt, who emphasized that while Trump is reluctant to engage in war, the president will not accept an agreement he views as insufficient.

“He is not a war president,” Greenblatt said, “but he will not accept a weak deal. Iran’s leadership should understand by now that President Trump means exactly what he says.”

Stricker also noted that Trump has consistently sought to avoid prolonged conflict, but argued that Iran’s internal repression and continued nuclear advances may push the president toward decisive action. On Saturday, satellite images revealed new activity at Iranian nuclear sites, a potential sign that Tehran is aiming to salvage remaining materials from the June strikes. 

“President Trump favors stability and prioritizes ending violence in global affairs,” she said. “After achieving the defanging of Tehran’s nuclear program, the regime has shown it remains a threat — the ongoing massacre is too much for Trump to tolerate as the leader of the free world.” “The president will likely ensure the regime pays a price, but whether the price is regime change remains to be seen,” she added.

When detailing what potential U.S. military intervention could look like, Koplow said that it would likely be “limited” in scope.  

“Any U.S. action is likely going to fall short of what the Israelis would like to see, which is a campaign that doesn’t stop until the regime has fallen,” said Koplow. “Trump seems to favor quick strikes, and he is also facing wall-to-wall opposition from Arab states regarding the prospects of a long campaign that destabilizes the region and damages prospects for trade, investment, and growth.”

However, other analysts read the shift to negotiations as a signal that intervention is increasingly unlikely. Jonathan Ruhe, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America told JI that U.S. military action is “unlikely for the moment.”

“An even bigger concern now is that military action could be off the table indefinitely, in a way it wasn’t just a day or two ago, as renewed talks now seem more likely,” said Ruhe. 

Ruhe also noted that a key indicator of Trump’s intentions will be “how long he keeps the ‘armada’ within striking distance,” referring to the U.S. military assets in the region. He added that negotiating with Tehran will likely result in an unfavorable outcome for the U.S. 

“Negotiating with Iran is absolutely the worst possible option for the United States now, because Iran’s regime will go from being on the ropes to thinking it prevailed,” said Ruhe, noting that Tehran is unlikely to agree to an “acceptable deal,” instead using the “prospect of talks to stave off military threats.”

“[Iran] is trying to do what it always does, playing for time and seeing what concessions it can wrangle without ever giving up anything itself,” Ruhe added. “This leaves zero upside for the U.S., since Iran is too emboldened to agree to serious concessions. There’s plenty of downside, too, since U.S. credibility would be dangerously eroded in Tehran’s eyes if Trump fails to fulfill his earlier threats.”

Koplow said Jerusalem is also concerned about a potential nuclear deal and is likely to perceive Iran’s willingness to enter talks as a way of “dragging out the process indefinitely.”

“[The Israelis] are concerned that Trump will back off his threats to take action or end up signing a deal that falls short of addressing the entire basket of issues — nuclear, missiles, and proxies,” said Koplow. 

Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, had said Tehran would strike Israel in response to any U.S. military action, in an interview with the Lebanese-based Al Mayadeen.

Stricker warned that any agreement that falls short of dismantling the regime’s power structure and fails to address key issues would be problematic not only for the U.S. and Israel, but for the Iranian public.

“Any deal with the Islamic Republic would represent a historic betrayal of the Iranian people,” Stricker said. “The only negotiation America should entertain with Tehran is the exit of top regime officials from Iran and their relinquishing of power prior to an orderly transition to democracy.”

President Donald Trump, over the last week, has gradually amped up threats of a military strike against Iran, pivoting away from talk of diplomatic negotiations amid continued intransigence from Tehran. 

On Wednesday, Trump wrote on Truth Social that “a massive Armada is heading to Iran … ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfill its mission, with speed and violence if necessary. Hopefully, Iran will quickly “Come to the Table” and negotiate a fair and equitable deal – NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS – one that is good for all parties. Time is running out, it is truly of the essence!” 

The president warned that “the next attack will be far worse” than last June’s Operation Midnight Hammer. “Don’t make that happen,” he added.

The regime’s mission to the United Nations responded with Trump-esque capitalization that “Iran stands ready for dialogue based on mutual respect and interests—BUT IF PUSHED, IT WILL DEFEND ITSELF AND RESPOND LIKE NEVER BEFORE!” 

Ali Shamkani, an advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who was severely injured in an Israeli airstrike on Iran last June, threatened — in Arabic, English, Hebrew, Russian and Mandarin — that “any military action by [the] US … will be considered the start of [a] war and its response will be immediate, all out and unprecedented, targeting [the] heart of Tel Aviv and all those supporting the aggressor.” 

Then, amid widespread reports of secret talks between Washington and Tehran through Omani mediators came the news that they made no progress on limiting the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile programs, and that Trump was once again weighing military action, according to CNN.

Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told Jewish Insider that Trump is engaged in “maximum-pressure negotiations,” which are “setting up the regime to say no.” 

Nadav Pollak, a lecturer at Reichman University and Israeli intelligence veteran, told JI that the latest developments were significant in that “Trump laid out terms for a deal and Iran said no, or didn’t say anything. It’s not surprising, because his terms — no nuclear program, no ballistic missiles over a certain range, no support for its proxies — are a surrender without concessions [from the U.S.], something the supreme leader can’t do.”

At the same time, Diker said, “Iran is desperate to cut a deal. … The Iranians are reaching out to cut a deal, like they always do when they feel cornered. Regime survival is the top priority of the regime.”

“I think it’s fair to assess that Trump senses he has a lot of leverage and a lot of power — and he does — and I think he’s applying maximum pressure on the regime. He knows the regime is weak, but it’s like a rabid dog … that can do anything, which can be very dangerous. They still have a lot of missiles,” he said.

Diker argued that 30 years after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu first warned about the Iranian threat in a joint session of Congress, “the stars aligned in terms of Trump and Netanyahu, and they could finally get rid of this regime, but it will come at a price. … The Iranian proxies will put us in a terrible position.” 

Israel is not the only country exposed to those dangers, Diker pointed out. “There is pressure on Trump from the Saudis, the Qataris, the Turks and others across the Middle East not to attack because of the distinct fear the regime will start firing rockets, missiles and drones everywhere. … Iranians will just be throwing stuff all over the Middle East, is the fear.” 

In Pollak’s assessment, U.S. military action is likely: “Trump, with all his language and rhetoric, climbed too high not to do anything. He also pushed U.S. assets into the region, similar to what he did in Venezuela. …The scope of a strike is unclear. That’s anyone’s guess right now.”

The shift in Trump’s rhetoric in recent days from focusing on the anti-regime protests to stopping Iran’s nuclear program shows that he is “trying to build legitimacy for a strike,” Pollak said. “The protests against the regime was a trigger for him, but he has other objectives in mind.”

Pollak said that Shamkani’s multilingual social media posts were the first public, direct military threat from Iran towards Israel, something he said Israel’s security establishment surely took note of.

“If it wasn’t certain until yesterday that Israel will get targeted, now it is, even if it’s one barrage,” Pollak said. 

Whether Israel will take part in the strikes on Iran remains an open question, Pollak said, but assessed that it is likely to happen. He pointed out that IDF Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen. Shlomi Binder was in Washington this week, reportedly to share information about possible targets in Iran.

Pollak pointed out that a month ago, in a press conference with Netanyahu at Mar-a-Lago, Trump said he would support Israel striking Iran if it continues to produce ballistic missiles, and if Iran tries to rebuild its nuclear weapons program, he would back Israel striking “fast.”

“I think [Netanyahu] for sure would want to take the opportunity to finish some of what we didn’t finish in June,” he said. “The question is whether Trump will let him or not.” 

Diker said that “Netanyahu has been hyper-focused on ridding Israel and the world of this regime for 30 years … When Netanyahu says Trump is the best friend Israel ever had, he’s not talking about the Abraham Accords. He’s talking right now about ending the Iranian regime. Netanyahu’s eyes are on that ball.” 

Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) said on Thursday that he would support the U.S. striking Iran’s nuclear facilities again to prevent Tehran from rebuilding its nuclear program — if the regime is found to be making strides toward restoring sites damaged by U.S. and Israeli strikes last year. 

The Pennsylvania senator told Jewish Insider that he believes the U.S. and Israel should keep targeting Iranian nuclear facilities until Iran’s leaders “get the message” that the Islamic Republic will never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. 

“If Iran restarts their nuclear ambitions, I fully support bombing them until they get the message,” Fetterman told JI.

Fetterman was supportive of President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities amid the 12-day war with Israel last year and has emerged as one of the staunchest Iran hawks in the Democratic Party. He criticized members of his party last June who spoke out against Israel’s strikes on Iran and Trump’s subsequent decision to join the strikes.

“It was just astonishing to see colleagues criticizing these things. It’s like, do you think you can negotiate with that regime? Do you think you want to run that scenario and allow them to acquire 1,000 pounds of weapons grade uranium?” Fetterman told JI at the time. “I can’t understand, I can’t even begin to understand that.”

For his part, the president said late last month while meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he was open to another round of strikes against Iran.

Asked by reporters if he will support another Israeli attack on Iran if it continues its ballistic missile and nuclear programs, Trump said, “If they continue with the missiles? Yes. If the nuclear? Fast, OK? One will be yes, absolutely; the other was, we’ll do it immediately.”

“Iran may be behaving badly,” he added. “It hasn’t been confirmed, but if it’s confirmed, look, they know the consequences.”

Fetterman is the first Democrat in Congress to publicly endorse additional strikes on Iran’s nuclear program, a move several of his Republican colleagues have also gotten behind. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said in Israel last month that Washington had a duty to act on “credible evidence” that Iran is looking for avenues to rebuild its nuclear program. The South Carolina senator argued it was imperative that the U.S. and Israel “hit them before they can” do so. 

“We obliterated the Iranian nuclear facilities. We did not obliterate Iran’s desire to have a nuclear weapon,” Graham said. “The regime hasn’t changed at all. They still want to kill all the Jews, consider America the great Satan, and purify Islam.”

“Are they regenerating their nuclear capability? Are they building more ballistic missiles that could hurt Europe and Israel?” he added. “I don’t know, but there’s evidence that, yes, they are.”

President Donald Trump vowed on Monday that he would support the U.S. or Israel launching another round of strikes against Iran if Tehran is attempting to rebuild its ballistic missile program or nuclear facilities.

Trump made the comments while speaking to reporters from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the latter’s fifth visit to the United States this year. 

Asked if he will support another Israeli attack on Iran if they continue their ballistic missile and nuclear programs, Trump said, “If they continue with the missiles? Yes. If the nuclear? Fast, okay? One will be yes, absolutely; the other was, we’ll do it immediately.”

He added later, “If they are [rearming], we’re going to have no choice but very quickly to eradicate that build up. … We don’t want to waste the fuel on a B-2 [bomber]. It’s a 37-hour trip, both ways, I don’t want to waste a lot of fuel,” suggesting the U.S. would again utilize its bomber jets that conducted the June strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The president repeatedly urged Tehran to return to the negotiating table with the U.S. while cautioning that the regime would face consequences for declining his offer to address the nuclear issue diplomatically. “They could have made a deal the last time before we went through the big attack on them, and they decided not to make the deal. They wish they made that deal. So I think, again, they should make a deal,” he said.

About reports that Iran is rearming, Trump said, “Iran may be behaving badly. It hasn’t been confirmed, but if it’s confirmed, look, they know the consequences.”

“This is just what we hear, but usually where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” he continued. “I’m hearing that their [efforts are] not nuclear yet, but maybe nuclear, too. The sites were obliterated, but they’re looking at other sites [than the ones the U.S. bombed in June]. That’s what I’ve heard. They’re looking. It’ll take a long time. They’re not going to go back to where they were, but they have other places they can go. And if they’re doing that, they’re making a big mistake.”

Trump repeatedly praised Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in his remarks with Netanyahu, pledging to thaw tensions between the Turkish and Israeli leaders and repeated that he was “very seriously” considering approving Turkey’s longstanding requests to purchase F-35 fighter jets from the United States. “We’re thinking about it very seriously,” Trump said about the move, which Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter said last month that Israel opposes.

“I know President Erdogan very well, and as you all know, he’s a very good friend of mine … and I do respect him and Bibi respects him, and they’re not going to have a problem,” Trump said.

Speaking to reporters alongside Netanyahu ahead of their meeting, Trump also voiced his support for Turkey joining the proposed U.S.-led International Stabilization Force to be deployed in Gaza.

“I have a great relationship with President Erdogan, and we’ll be talking about it. And if it’s good, I think that’s good. And a lot will be having to do with Bibi, we’re going to be talking about that,” Trump said. “But Turkey has been great, and he [Erdogan] has been excellent, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t know about you [Netanyahu], but to me he’s been very good.” 

Netanyahu did not comment on the suggestion at the time or during the press conference later on, though Israel, as well as several U.S. lawmakers, has said it opposes Ankara’s involvement in the proposed peacekeeping force due largely to Turkey’s ties to Hamas, despite the supportive posture from the Trump administration.

The president later used the topic of Syria to again praise Erdogan, arguing the Turkish leader deserved “a lot of credit” for ousting the Assad regime. 

“Don’t forget, it was President Erdogan that helped very much get rid of a very bad ruler of Syria. That was President Erdogan, and he never wanted the credit for it, but he really gets a lot of credit. Bibi agrees with that. … I know it,” Trump told reporters. 

The president went on to say that the U.S. and Israel “have an understanding regarding Syria” and that he was working to improve relations between the Jewish state and its neighbor, praising Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa along the way. 

“We do have an understanding regarding Syria. Now with Syria, your new president. I respect him. He’s a very strong guy. That’s what you need in Syria. You can’t put a choir boy, you can’t put somebody that’s a perfect person — everything’s nice, no problems in life,” Trump said. 

“I’m sure that Israel and him will get along,” he continued. “I will try and make it so that they do get along. I think they will.” 

For its part, Israel has been wary of al-Sharaa and the new Syrian government, with the IDF maintaining control of the 155-square-mile buffer zone between the two countries since the fall of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad last year, against Damascus’ wishes. Israel and Syria have also continued to disagree on the contours of a potential security agreement, which the Trump administration has continuously sought, with Netanyahu maintaining that any agreement must require Syria to accept the demilitarization of territory stretching from southern Damascus to the Israeli border.  

Trump was also asked about the Lebanese government’s failure thus far to disarm Hezbollah, amid reports that the terror group is rearming. The president demurred when pressed on his support of Israel striking Hezbollah targets in Lebanon again as a result, instead only acknowledging his disapproval with the terrorist organization. 

“Well, we’re going to see about that. We’ll see about it,” Trump said. “The Lebanese government is at a little bit of a disadvantage, if you think of it, with Hezbollah, but Hezbollah has been behaving badly. So we’ll see what happens.”

Asked about attacks by Israeli settlers against Palestinians, Trump acknowledged that he and Netanyahu discussed the West Bank during the meeting and that they’re not in complete alignment on the issue. Still, Trump expressed confidence that all parties would reach “a conclusion” to prevent the matter from undermining the implementation of his broader peace plan, though he declined to offer specifics.

“Well, we have had a discussion, big discussion, for a long time on the West Bank. And I wouldn’t say we agree on the West Bank 100%, but we will come to a conclusion on the West Bank. … It’ll be announced at an appropriate time, but [Netanyahu] will do the right thing. I know that. I know him very well. He will do the right thing,” he said.

Trump also expressed gratitude during his remarks for being named the recipient of the Israel Prize, the Jewish state’s highest cultural honor awarded by the country’s education minister. Netanyahu said Trump will be the first non-Israeli to receive the award, which the president said “really is a great honor.”

Netanyahu invited Trump to visit Israel on Yom Ha’atzmaut, the Jewish state’s independence day, in April, which will be an election year, to receive the award in person. 

Joined by Trump at his the meeting with Netanyahu were White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles; Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff for policy at the White House; Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth; Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Steve Witkoff, the White House’s Mideast envoy; and Jared Kushner, Trump’s advisor on Middle East efforts. 

Netanyahu also met individually with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth while at the president’s property. 

Walk into any think tank in Washington and you’re likely to bump into more than a few so-called “Iran watchers”: researchers whose job is to try to interpret the actions of the often-opaque Iranian regime and help policymakers figure out how to approach the Islamic Republic. 

Given the adversarial relationship between Washington and Tehran, making sense of the two nations’ policy choices toward each other is big business. But according to some Iranians, something is missing. 

“Most of the people who are working on Iran, they have never been to Iran. Americans, I mean. That brings with itself certain limitations,” said Mehdi Parpanchi, who was born in Iran but now lives in Washington. The U.S. does not have a diplomatic presence in Iran, and vice versa. “In my opinion, the image of Iran is not being seen properly from outside the country.” 

Parpanchi is the director of U.S. news at Iran International, one of the biggest independent Persian-language news outlets in the world. Based in London, Iran International broadcasts inside of Iran via satellite — much to the chagrin of Iranian officials, who have called the network a terrorist organization. It also reaches Iranians expats and dissidents around the world. While the network mainly operates with the goal of offering independent news from an anti-regime perspective to the global Iranian diaspora, Iran International also serves as a crucial source to Iran watchers of all stripes, including those who have never set foot in the country. 

“There is always a decade of delay between the reality inside Iran and how it is being seen from the West, especially from the U.S.,” Parpanchi, who moved to Washington in 2020 to launch a U.S. headquarters for Iran International, told Jewish Insider last month. 

A new show from Iran International, filmed in Washington and broadcast around the world, aims to at least partly remedy that problem. “Iran International Insight,” which launched in June, pledges to put Iran International viewers who live in Iran in conversation with the political figures and diplomats across the world whose policy choices will affect their lives. 

“The concept was that there’s a tremendous opportunity for policymakers and experts in D.C., but especially policymakers, to be engaging with and taking questions from the Iranian people directly,” said Aaron Lobel, a co-producer of the new show and the founder and president of America Abroad Media, an international media organization.

The growth of Iran International’s programming in Washington comes after the Trump administration slashed funding for the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which supports independent outlets such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFERL) and Middle East Broadcasting Networks that air pro-democracy content around the world. Parpanchi previously spent two years at RFERL, which has a Persian-language branch. 

Iran International is not expressly trying to fill that niche, and the new program was in the works starting in 2024, before Trump even came to office. Regardless, the new program arrives at a time that America has pulled back from cultural diplomacy. 

“This is in the best traditions of the United States. It advances American values and it advances American interests,” said Lobel. “The more credible media organizations outside Iran that are trying to reach the Iranian people with information and to give them some sense of hope as well — the more the better.” 

So far, three interviews — hourlong conversations between one or two guests and an Iran International anchor — have been filmed, all in front of a live audience, including many Iranians who live and work in Washington. Iran International’s producers and journalists solicit questions from the network’s viewers in Iran. The interviews take place in English, but they are dubbed in Persian before being aired.

“I’ve met with groups of Iranian diaspora, who have family in Iran and who are activists with them. But I don’t think I received online questions like that,” Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter, who was the first guest, told JI. “That was the primary agenda, to speak to the people.” 

Leiter’s interview with Iran International was a journalistic gold mine for the network: scheduled in advance, it happened to come at a particularly timely moment, hours after President Donald Trump announced a cease-fire between Israel and Iran at the end of the countries’ 12-day war in June. Leiter touted Israel’s military victories in its campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Yet many Iranians wondered why Israel would attack Iran, but ultimately not seek to remove the ayatollah from power. (Hundreds of questions were submitted.)

“One of the themes that came out that was so striking was, of course, many Iranians wanted Israel to continue the campaign, and they were, I think it’s fair to say, you could hear in that show, disappointed that Israel stopped the war. Or to put it differently, they were upset that the Israeli government had, in their view, raised their expectations of ‘regime change’ and then failed to deliver,” said Lobel. 

Leiter offered unusually candid responses to those questions, going beyond the diplomatic language that would’ve gotten the job done even if leaving viewers unsatisfied. 

“I appreciated the opportunity to explain why we weren’t going to go further and actually topple the regime by force,” Leiter explained. “I understand them. Remember when the chancellor of Germany said that Israel is doing the ‘dirty work’ for the world? I guess that the people wanted us to do the work completely for the world. But we can’t do that. And it was important for me to be able to explain that.”

Two other programs were recorded this fall. One featured Elliott Abrams, who served as Iran envoy in Trump’s first term, and Dennis Ross, a fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy who previously held several high-level jobs at the State Department in Democratic and Republican administrations. Another featured former CIA official Norman Roule and Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Iran International’s main Instagram account has 16 million followers, and video clips from the Roule-Dubowitz event got about 1 million views each.

Those four experts have different ideological backgrounds, but each falls closer to the hawkish end of the spectrum on Iran. So does Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who was scheduled to appear in an interview in September before the congressional schedule led Cotton to cancel. (Parpanchi said they hope to reschedule.) 

Parpanchi said Iran International aims to include a broad range of perspectives from Washington, noting that the program is only just beginning. 

“It’s not only hawkish. There are other people who have different views about Iran, and we will reflect them all,” Parpanchi said. Iran International plans to ramp up to a more regular filming schedule in 2026.  

President Donald Trump said in an interview with Fox News host Mark Levin on Tuesday that at the time of the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, he believed Tehran “would have had nuclear weapons in a period of four weeks.”

Calling in to Levin’s radio show, Trump said that, “if we didn’t [strike Iran], they would probably by this time, just about this time, have a nuclear weapon and they would have used it.”

Trump said that, despite news reports questioning his assessment of the efficacy of the strikes, “it turned out that” the impacts were “even more so than I said. It was obliteration.”

“The Atomic Energy Commission said, this place is gone. [Iran] can maybe start up, but they’re not starting up there,” Trump said of the Iranian nuclear facilities targeted in the operation. The Israel Atomic Energy Commission found that the U.S. strike on the Fordow nuclear facility “destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure” and rendered it “inoperable,” though reports differ on the extent of the damage. 

The president told Levin that the U.S. Air Force pilots who conducted the strikes told him that they and their predecessors had been practicing the flight to Iranian airspace for 22 years.

Trump lauded his peacemaking abilities, saying, “I’ve settled six wars and we did the Iran night, wiped out their whole nuclear capability, which they would have used against Israel in two seconds if they had the chance.”

He called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “war hero” and said, “I guess I am, too. … I mean, I sent those planes.”

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told Jewish Insider on Friday that he’s inclined to view the Trump administration’s strikes last month on Iran’s nuclear facilities as a “success,” if negotiations with Tehran resume and barring substantial future retaliation from Iran.

His comments largely echo sentiments shared earlier in the day by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) at the Aspen Security Forum, suggesting an increasing willingness by moderate, national security-minded Democrats to publicly acknowledge positive outcomes of the strikes, even if they maintain other concerns about the process that produced them.

“I will acknowledge the successfulness of the Israeli attacks and how back-foot the regime was. The fact that they didn’t launch the thousands of missiles,” Warner told JI on the sidelines of the forum. “I was concerned about an attack that didn’t bring Congress along. And I do think there was a huge process foul when the Gang of Eight wasn’t notified and the Republicans [were]. Trump[’s first administration] never did that — but I have never contested the success.”

Warner, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he’s been pleased that there has not been ongoing asymmetric retaliation against the U.S. by Iran, such as cyber, sleeper cell or Iraqi militia attacks.

“If the current status quo is the same a year from now and it actually leads towards further negotiation — success.”

Warner, Coons and other top Democrats had cautioned the administration against unilateral action against Iran without congressional approval just days before the attack.

“Let’s make no doubt that the Iranian regime [are] bad guys, and that is why I’ve been such a consistent supporter of Israel,” Warner told JI.

“Iran’s, at least so far, been shown to be more of a paper tiger,” Warner said. “If we could just get to the resolution in Gaza, there really could be a fresh start.”

The senator said that his ongoing concern is how President Donald Trump has responded to the attacks, declaring that Iran’s nuclear program had been completely obliterated.

“The president, within two hours of the strike, set an arbitrary, almost impossible standard to meet, in terms of ‘total obliteration,’” Warner said. “To get the enriched uranium you’re going to need troops on the ground. And there are more than three sites — the vast majority [of the activity] was [at] those three, but there was some bad stuff happening elsewhere.”

He said the intelligence community had also been pressured to “contort itself to meet” the assessment Trump put forward.

In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Warner and other Democrats expressed frustration that the Trump administration took days to brief Congress about them. Warner said he’s received “some additional clarity” in the weeks since the strikes about their effects. But he said that without physically sending operatives into the facilities, it’s difficult to know for sure the impacts of the strikes.

“Other nations have made assessments that were more in the multiple months” of delay to Iran’s nuclear program, “but I’m not even sure that’s the right metric,” Warner said. “It was a success. So the question is, what’s next? That, I don’t have visibility on.”

Going forward, Warner emphasized the need for negotiations to bring International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors back into Iran, adding that he wants to look further into the source of the delays in resuming talks.

Warner said he’s also seeking information on the timeline on which Iran would be able to build a less sophisticated nuclear device that could be delivered in a truck, rather than via a ballistic missile.

Though he noted that U.S. intelligence had not assessed that Iran was actively constructing a nuclear weapon, he said he had heard reports about an Israeli assessment that offered a different view and that he is looking further into it.

Asked about the fluid situation in Syria, in which Israel went, in the span of just a week, from floating normalization with the new Syrian government to bombing key government facilities in response to attacks on the Druze population, Warner indicated he’s still gathering information.

He said that Israel is “appropriately … very protective of its Druze population,” adding that he does not know at this point whether the Syrian government forces attacking the Druze population are doing so at the orders of that government. 

He said he’s hopeful that Israel and other parties involved will not miss an opportunity to find a peaceful resolution that could defuse a major longtime threat to Israel’s north.

Warner said he also wants to see Trump use his “enormous influence in Israel” to “[force] Bibi’s government into a return of the hostages, a ceasefire,” saying that would open up opportunities for transformational change in the region, including Saudi-Israeli normalization.

Warner said that while he’s been critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel and the IDF deserve credit for their surprise accomplishments in taking down Iran’s proxy network and in their strikes against Iran itself.

“The [Jewish community’s] concern is real and understandable,” Warner said. He said that he has been struck by the “level of anger, animosity, vile things said” in anti-Israel protests that have targeted him — “and I’m not Jewish. And I can only imagine.”

“Iran’s, at least so far, been shown to be more of a paper tiger,” Warner said. “If we could just get to the resolution in Gaza, there really could be a fresh start.”

Asked how concerned he is about the possibility of homeland attacks against the Jewish community carried out by or in the name of Iran, Warner said that U.S. intelligence monitors potential threats fairly comprehensively, but indicated that he’s most worried about radicalized lone-wolf attacks, like those in Washington and Boulder, Colo.

“The [Jewish community’s] concern is real and understandable,” Warner said. He said that he has been struck by the “level of anger, animosity, vile things said” in anti-Israel protests that have targeted him — “and I’m not Jewish. And I can only imagine.”

Warner expressed frustration at the way that the Palestinian cause has crowded out other global issues on college campuses. He said that it “would be healthy” if young people “have the chance to get exposed to other things in the world,” offering as examples the conflict in Sudan — which he said has been more deadly than Gaza and Ukraine combined — and the military junta in Myanmar.

On the subject of the Houthis, who have ramped up attacks against commercial shipping and Israel in recent weeks, Warner called the group a “tough nut to crack,” noting that a protracted Saudi and Emirati campaign against the Iran-backed terrorist group in Yemen had failed to put the issue to bed. But he said that the U.S. can’t rule out further military action against the group.

“I hope that those plans would be kept classified and not shared … on a device that’s not secure,” he quipped, referencing the Signalgate scandal, which he said had prompted concern from the Israeli government.

******

Last week’s Aspen summit, which typically prioritizes bipartisan and nonpartisan discussion and solution-making, became particularly politicized after nearly all Trump administration speakers canceled their participation, followed by a handful of foreign and private sector leaders and former government officials disappearing from the week’s agenda.

The issue was a frequent topic of discussion both on the main stage and across the Aspen Meadows campus last week, seen by many as a sign of the ways that intense partisanship has infiltrated U.S. foreign policy, once seen as a less antagonistic space.

Warner’s own panel featured himself and Coons, but not a Republican senator, as has been tradition.

Nevertheless, Warner said that bipartisanship on foreign policy issues still lives in the Senate, noting that the Intelligence Committee had passed an Intelligence Authorization Act recently in a nearly unanimous vote.

Looking ahead, he said the “easiest place to rebuild that consensus is around China,” which he described as an unprecedented competitor. He said there has been a long and difficult journey across multiple administrations to refocus on China, but he said there has been bipartisan success in pushing back against China.

He also argued that the Trump administration’s transactional and short-sighted approach to foreign policy goes against a longtime bipartisan tradition of viewing U.S. international relationships as an effort in “mutual trust-building.”

He said that his Republican colleagues privately disagree with many of Trump’s more outlandish foreign policy efforts — like annexing Canada. “At some point, there’s got to be a break,” he responded, when pressed on the fact that some Republicans defend Trump’s policies publicly despite those private disagreements.

Warner told JI that the bill the Intelligence Committee recently passed would cut the size of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. But, despite offering biting criticisms of DNI Tulsi Gabbard, Warner said that the reform efforts are not a reflection of or specifically prompted by concerns about her conduct in the role.

“I’m very comfortable with the idea of bringing the mission closer to what it was originally, but also making sure that people who are at the ODNI get returned to their original home agency and don’t get [fired],” Warner said.

Clarifying comments that he made on the panel about close U.S. intelligence partners in the Five Eyes group curtailing their intelligence sharing with the United States, Warner said he was not aware of specific instances in which that had happened, but said that U.S. partners are concerned about the state of the U.S. intelligence community.

“The challenge about intelligence sharing is [that] this is all based on trust,” Warner said.

Susan Rice, who served as national security advisor during the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Tehran’s nuclear program while defending the 2015 agreement during a panel discussion on Monday at the Aspen Institute’s Ideas Festival.

Rice, who was on stage with former Trump administration National Security Advisor John Bolton and former CIA director David Petraeus, disagreed with her two colleagues that Trump’s Iran strikes were largely a success. 

“I think the resort to military action when diplomacy had not been exhausted was a strategic mistake,” Rice said. “And the reality is, and we’re back to this point today, only diplomacy and a negotiated settlement can ensure the sustainable and verifiable dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. You need inspectors on the ground. You need verifiable constraints that are very significant, and you don’t achieve that by ripping up the 2015 nuclear agreement and replacing it with nothing.”

Rice joins a chorus of former Obama and Biden administration officials who have criticized Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, despite many experts concluding the damage to the program was significant. IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, for instance, said that “based on the assessments of senior officers in IDF Intelligence, the damage to [Iran’s] nuclear program is … systemic … severe, broad and deep, and pushed back by years.”

Last week, former Secretary of State Tony Blinken wrote an op-ed in The New York Times: “The strike on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities by the United States was unwise and unnecessary. Now that it’s done, I very much hope it succeeded.”

At the Aspen Ideas Festival last week, former Biden administration National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told moderator Fareed Zakaria: “We still need a deal because Iran still has, it appears, stockpiles of enriched uranium, still has centrifuge capacity, even if the installed centrifuge capacity has been destroyed or damaged or who knows what, and still has know-how and therefore still has the possibility of reconstituting its program.”

Bolton, on the same panel as Rice, argued that the time was ripe for military action against Iran.

“I think the regime is weaker than at any point since the 1979 revolution,” Bolton said. “But I think we will never have an opportunity this good to remove not just the nuclear program but the Iranian support for terrorism, which dates back to 1979 when they seized our embassy employees and it went downhill from there.”

Bolton outlined several ways in which Iranians are dissatisfied with the regime, including economic stagnation and state of women’s rights in the country. 

“The answer is regime change. But in the meantime, we want to make sure that there aren’t any even possible successful efforts by Iran to do something with what they have,” Bolton said.

Turning to Israel’s war in Gaza, all members of the panel argued that Israel needed to shift its strategy to successfully eliminate Hamas. Bolton said that, despite successfully degrading the terror group’s organizational structure, Israel had not successfully fulfilled all of its war goals, which include eliminating Hamas and securing the release of all the hostages.

Bolton argued that an additional objective of the war should be to “provide a better future for the Palestinians without Hamas in their lives. The only way you can achieve all four of these is … by going in and conducting a comprehensive civil military counterinsurgency campaign. You clear every building floor room and block all the tunnel entrances, let the people that belong there back in with biometric ID cards, and then you have an entry control point to the rest of Gaza. With security, anything is possible.”

Iran violated a ceasefire with Israel hours after it began on Tuesday, with Israel vowing “powerful strikes” in response.

The IDF intercepted two missiles from Iran at about 10:30 a.m. No injuries were reported. Despite residents of northern Israel reporting interceptions, Iran denied firing the missiles.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said he “instructed the IDF to respond forcefully to the violation of the ceasefire by Iran with powerful strikes against regime targets in the heart of Tehran.” IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir said that “in light of the severe violation of the ceasefire carried out by the Iranian regime, we will respond with force.” A senior Israeli diplomatic source said that “Iran violated the ceasefire — and it will pay.” 

In the hours before the ceasefire was meant to go into effect at 7 a.m., Iran launched 20 missiles in a series of barrages at Israel, killing four in a direct hit on a building in Beersheba. 

Ahead of the deadly strike, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi sent mixed messages, first posting on X that “there is NO ‘agreement’ on any ceasefire … However, provided that the Israeli regime stops its illegal aggression against the Iranian people no later than 4 am Tehran time, we have no intention to continue our response afterwards.” Less than 20 minutes later, Araghchi implied on X that a ceasefire had gone into effect: “The military operations of our powerful Armed Forces to punish Israel for its aggression continued until the very last minute, at 4am.” 

The Islamic Republic has repeatedly struck Beersheba since the war began 12 days ago, damaging buildings in the Soroka Medical Center, Microsoft offices and residences in the southern Israel city. The regime said it was aiming at an IDF research center in the city’s HiTech Park. 

President Donald Trump announced a “Complete and Total CEASEFIRE” on Truth Social on Monday evening, saying that each “side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL … This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will!” 

According to the president, Iran was supposed to have stopped firing at Israel at 7 a.m. local time, and Israel would stop 12 hours later. 

At about 8 a.m. Israel time, Trump added: “THE CEASEFIRE IS NOW IN EFFECT. PLEASE DO NOT VIOLATE IT!” 

Netanyahu and Trump spoke about the ceasefire overnight, while an American team that included Vice President JD Vance talked to Tehran, Reuters reported. Israel’s condition for the ceasefire was that Iran stop launching attacks, which they reportedly agreed to at the time. Qatar also took part in the negotiations. 

The Israeli government released a statement on Tuesday morning that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reported to the Security Cabinet that “Israel has achieved all of the objectives of Operation Rising Lion, and much more. Israel has removed a double existential threat — on both the nuclear issue and regarding ballistic missiles. The IDF also achieved complete air superiority in the skies over Tehran, struck a severe blow to the military leadership and destroyed dozens of Iran’s main regime targets.”

“In Operation Rising Lion, the State of Israel made great historic achievements and placed itself in the first rank of the world’s major powers,” the government stated. “This is a great success for the people of Israel and its fighters, who removed two existential threats to our country, and ensured the eternity of Israel.”

Israel also “thank[ed] President Trump and the U.S. for their defensive support and for their participation in removing the Iranian nuclear threat.”

The ceasefire was reached “in full coordination with President Trump,” the statement reads, but “Israel will respond forcefully to any violation of the ceasefire.”

IDF Spokesperson Brig.-Gen. Effie Defrin also said in a briefing on Tuesday morning that “the IDF has fully met all the objectives defined in Operation Rising Lion.”

“The Chief of the General Staff instructed the IDF to maintain a high level of alert and readiness to deliver a powerful response to any violation of the ceasefire,” he added.

In addition, Israel’s Home Front Command maintained its restrictions on Israelis, including the continued closure of schools and non-essential businesses.

The Israeli government statement also said that the IDF killed hundreds of militants from the Basij, “the terrorist regime’s instrument of repression,” and killed a senior nuclear scientist, named Mohammad Reza Sadighi, according to Iranian reports.

Defrin said that on Monday night and early Tuesday, the Israeli Air Force “struck dozens of military targets in Tehran … deploying more than one hundred munitions.” The targets included the headquarters of SPND, where weapons systems and nuclear technology were developed, as well as military manufacturing infrastructure. The IAF also eliminated eight missile launchers that were ready to fire at Israel.

Israel on Monday bombed the gates of Iran’s notorious Evin Prison, where the regime holds and tortures dissidents, and conducted follow-up strikes near the Fordow nuclear facility a day after it was bombed by the U.S.

Evin has been a symbol of the regime’s oppression for decades. The Tehran prison is where the regime has incarcerated activists, protesters, journalists, dual nationals and others, and used torture methods including beatings, solitary confinement and sexual abuse. Iran expert Ben Sabti told Jewish Insider last week that Iranians have called on Israel to strike prisons so that dissident leaders held inside could escape and push for the toppling of the regime. 

The strike on the prison was one of several by Israeli fighter jets, targeting “bodies of government oppression in the heart of Tehran,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Monday morning. The military struck the headquarters of the Basij, the regime’s internal enforcement arm, which has been instrumental in enforcing Islamic law and suppressing protest; the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ internal security command center; the Alborz Corps, responsible for security and regime stability in the Tehran district; and a clock in the city’s Palestine Square counting down to Israel’s destruction by 2040.

“These command centers have significant military effect and additionally they impact the regime’s ability to impose control. Striking these military targets harms the Iranian regime’s military capabilities,” the IDF Spokesperson’s Office stated.

Israel also conducted follow-up strikes on the access routes to the Fordow nuclear facility on Monday, the IDF confirmed. The strikes came a day after the U.S. struck the complex, which is under a mountain, with bunker-buster bombs.

The full extent of the damage done to the site, as well as facilities in Natanz and Isfahan, remained unclear after the strike by U.S. bombers early Sunday morning.

President Donald Trump said on Sunday that the U.S. did “monumental” damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities – “Obliteration is an accurate term!” he wrote on his Truth Social site — amid reports that the sites had been severely damaged but not destroyed. 

Former Mossad chief Yossi Cohen told Israel’s Channel 12 News on Sunday that “to the best of my knowledge,” the U.S. strikes “succeeded in fully stopping the Iranian nuclear project, certainly at this point.” 

International Atomic Energy Agency Secretary-General Rafael Grossi said that the bombing likely caused “very significant damage” to Fordow but that “no one — including the IAEA — is in a position to have fully assessed the underground damage.” 

An Israeli government source told JI that the full extent of the damage was still being assessed as of Monday morning, but that Natanz and most of Iran’s estimated 400 kg of highly enriched uranium held at Isfahan were destroyed, and little of the uranium was moved to other locations before the strike. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel was very close to reaching the main goal of its operation in Iran: rolling back the nuclear and ballistic missile threats to Israel.

“When we reach our goals in Iran, the war will end,” he said in a press conference on Sunday. “We will not be dragged into a war of attrition.”

An Israeli official told Ynet that “if Khamenei stops shooting and says he wants to end the event, we will accept it … We want to end the event soon, this week, but whether it happens depends on Khamenei. If he shoots nonstop, we will have to respond.” 

The IDF told JI on Monday that about 50% of Iran’s missile launchers have been destroyed.

Yossi Mansharov, an Iran expert at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, explained that it’s more important “to focus on the launchers that Iran retains, because without launchers, the missiles are useless.”

“This is a historic achievement for Israel, which will require Iran to check its defenses after the war,” Mansharov added. “The regime was caught unprepared for a war when it comes to defense and that has been very costly, as you can see from Israel’s extraordinary achievements.”

Still, Mansharov added, “Israel will also have to do an extensive examination to understand how it can improve its interceptions of deadly missiles.” (The writer is a senior fellow at the Misgav Institute.)

Iran hit an electrical facility in southern Israel with a ballistic missile on Monday morning. The Israel Electric Corporation said a “strategic infrastructure facility” was damaged near the city of Ashdod, causing power outages. 

The Islamic Republic launched some seven missiles on Monday morning, in four separate barrages, sending Israelis across the country into bomb shelters for over half an hour. Iran also shot one missile into Israel overnight, which was intercepted. No injuries were reported. 

As of Monday, Iran had shot about 500 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel since the start of Operation Rising Lion this month, according to the Israeli government. 

The IDF continued its strikes on Iran overnight and on Monday morning, including on missile launchers in Kermanshah and Tehran, fighter jets and six military airports in western, eastern and central Iran, and the Parchin military base, where experiments related to nuclear weapons have been conducted.

IDF Spokesperson Brig.-Gen. Effie Defrin said in a press briefing on Monday that the Israeli strikes are conducted “with an emphasis on the [Islamic] Revolutionary Guard Corps command centers and all elements of the threat to Israel … Every base from which we identify [missile] launches is attacked and damaged.”

Iranian media reported that the Islamic Republic shot down an Israeli drone.

Trump spoke out in favor of changing the regime in Iran, even as senior officials in Washington and Israel have said that is not one of the goals of the operation.

“It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???MIGA!!!” Trump wrote on Truth Social. 

Netanyahu would not rule out killing Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei when asked about it last week, and Defense Minister Israel Katz said Khamenei should remember “the fate of the dictator of the neighboring country,” Saddam Hussein.

Iran continued to threaten revenge on the U.S. for its recent strikes. A spokesperson for the Iranian military’s Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters warned in a video in English that “Mr. Trump, the gambler, you may start this war, but we will be the ones to end it … The fighters of Islam will respond to the crime with powerful and targeted attacks that will lead to unexpected consequences.” 

Israel struck a centrifuge production site in Tehran early Wednesday, after successfully intercepting more than two dozen missiles launched by Iran toward Israel in the preceding hours.

Over 50 Israeli Air Force jets flew to Iran, where they struck a facility in which centrifuges were manufactured to expand and accelerate uranium enrichment for Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the IDF Spokesperson’s Office said.

”The Iranian regime is enriching uranium for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons. Nuclear power for civilian use does not require enrichment at these levels,” the IDF said.

The IDF also said it struck several weapons manufacturing facilities, including one used “to produce raw materials and components for the assembly of surface-to-surface missiles, which the Iranian regime has fired and continues to fire toward the State of Israel.” Another facility that the IDF struck manufactured components for anti-aircraft missiles.

IDF Spokesperson Effie Defrin said on Wednesday that the IDF “attacked five Iranian combat helicopters that tried to harm our aircraft.” 

“There is Iranian resistance, but we control the air [over Iran] and will continue to control it. We are deepening our damage to surface missiles and acting in every place from which the Iranians shoot missiles at Israel,” Defrin added.

Defrin said on Tuesday evening that, as a result of Israel’s air superiority in western Iran and the Tehran area, the Islamic Republic’s military efforts “have been pushed back into central Iran. They are now focusing their efforts on conducting missile fire from the area of Isfahan.”

Defense Minister Israel Katz said that “a tornado is passing over Tehran. Symbols of the regime are exploding and collapsing, from the broadcast authority and soon other targets, and masses of residents are fleeing. This is how dictatorships collapse.” 

Most of the projectiles fired from Iran toward northern and central Israel overnight were intercepted, and no injuries or fatalities were reported. 

In addition, Iran launched over 10 drones at the Galilee and the Golan on Wednesday morning, all of which the IDF intercepted.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that Israel is running low on Arrow interceptors used to shoot down long-range ballistic missiles from Iran. Israel also uses the David’s Sling system against Iranian missiles. The Arrow is manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries. The U.S. has augmented Israel’s air defenses with its THAAD system, but is concerned about its own stock of interceptors. The IDF told the Journal that “it is prepared and ready to handle any scenario.”

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote on X that Iran “must give a strong response to the terrorist Zionist regime. We will show the Zionists no mercy.” On his Persian X account, Khamenei evoked Khaybar, the site of a massacre of Jews by Muslims in the 7th century, along with an image of a man with a sword entering a burning castle. 

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed that it shot Fatah-1 hypersonic missiles at Israel, which move faster than the speed of sound and cannot be detected by missile defense systems. However, there is no evidence on the ground in Israel of that being the case. 

Iranian state media reported on Wednesday the interception of an Israeli drone near Isfahan, with footage of an aircraft that looks like an IAF Hermes 900. The IDF declined to comment. 

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar wrote a letter updating the U.N. Security Council on Israel’s Operation Rising Lion against Iran. The operation is “aimed to neutralize the existential and imminent threat from Iran’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs” and “specifically targets military facilities and critical components of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, as well as key individuals involved in Iran’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons.” 

Sa’ar noted the Islamic Republic’s “public threats to eliminate the State of Israel, in stark violation of the UN charter, and its continued attempts to achieve the means to accomplish this by rapidly developing military nuclear capabilities, as well as its ballistic missile program.” He pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency censured Iran in a recent Board of Governors decision for its non-compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Sa’ar’s letter came after two missives from Iran to the UNSC about Israel’s strikes on the country.

Also Wednesday, the first Israeli rescue flights arrived from Cyprus, meant to help some of the over 100,000 Israelis stuck abroad while Israel’s airspace is closed. Israel Airports Authority said that 2,800 Israelis were expected to return on Wednesday. Israeli airlines El Al, Arkia, Israir and Air Haifa will be making further emergency flights to repatriate Israelis.

China’s foreign ministry said that it was telling citizens to leave Israel and Iran, and Russia’s ambassador to Israel, Anatoly Viktorov, said that the families of Russian diplomats left Israel via Egypt on Tuesday. 

Iran has launched about 400 ballistic missiles and hundreds of drones at Israel, hitting 40 impact sites since the beginning of the operation on Friday, according to the Israeli Government Press Office. There have been 24 fatalities and over 804 injured, eight of whom are in serious condition. About 3,800 people have been evacuated from their homes and 18,766 damage claims were submitted to the Israel Tax Authority.

Israel finds itself in a familiar position this week: Washington is negotiating a nuclear deal with Tehran while blocking Israel from striking Iran at what it sees as an opportune time. 

In contrast with a decade ago, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly campaigned against then-President Barack Obama entering the U.S. into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action to curb Iran’s nuclear activity, President Donald Trump seems to have Netanyahu boxed in. 

Trump announced the start of direct talks between the U.S. and Iran last Monday in the Oval Office with Netanyahu, who appeared uncomfortable. Israeli sources told Jewish Insider at the time that they knew negotiations between Washington and Tehran were set to begin soon but did not know the date before meeting with Trump. Netanyahu called for a Libya-style deal, meaning the full dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program.

Behind closed doors that day, Trump ruled out a U.S.-supported Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites until the diplomatic option is exhausted, according to The New York Times. The time to decide on diplomacy or military action is limited, as nearly six months have passed since Israel destroyed Iran’s air defenses, and a mechanism of the 2015 deal to snap back U.N. sanctions on Iran expires in October 2025.

Days later, Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, spoke with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman, the highest level dialogue between the two countries in years. On his return to Washington, Witkoff sent mixed messages about the potential contours of a new nuclear deal. First, he suggested that Iran would be able to continue its uranium enrichment program for civilian purposes, limited to 3.67% enrichment. Critics of the JCPOA, which included similar low-level enrichment, argued that it allowed Iran to maintain a path to a nuclear weapon. The following day, Witkoff walked those comments back, posting on X that a deal would mean that “Iran must stop and eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.”

A Trump administration source told JI on condition of anonymity that while the president is firm on not letting Iran have a nuclear weapon, the policy of how to get there is still in flux. Witkoff faithfully represents the president to the extent that he, like the president, will float ideas publicly to see the reaction and adjust accordingly, the source said.

IDF Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, head of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, told JI that the Trump administration is “speaking generally, not about the details. They understand very well the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.” 

Shira Efron, director of research at the Israel Policy Forum, noted that it is still too early to know what a deal will look like.

“There seem to be divisions within the administration itself,” Efron told JI. “There’s a camp that favors a deal … and really sees China as the main adversary while Iran isn’t a priority. Then there are those more aligned with the Israeli position. We don’t know which way this is going to go.”

That did not allay the concerns of some JCPOA critics that the new deal may recycle what they see as the weaknesses of the old one.

Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told JI: “There is no right to enrich. It’s a made-up term … The whole premise plays into Iranian hands.”

Oren said that Obama-era CIA Director Bill Burns wrote in his memoirs that the U.S. conceded a “right to enrich” during the first negotiation meeting with Iran in 2013, and expressed concern that Witkoff had done the same in talks with the Islamic Republic in Oman on Saturday.

“Once you have the right to enrich, the negotiation is about how many centrifuges are active — because they won’t dismantle — and what is your cap on low-enriched uranium,” Oren said. “It’s a great deal for the Iranians.”

Kuperwasser said that any deal must “make sure Iran does not have the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, not just that it does not have a nuclear weapon. To not have the capability, it cannot be able to enrich uranium, or develop nuclear warheads or nuclear weapons based on uranium or plutonium. There can be no weaponization … The Americans understand that.”

According to Efron, “For Israel, a bad deal would be the worst of all outcomes. A bad deal in 2015 is not like a bad deal would be now. On the one hand, Iran is weaker” — after the Israeli strikes on its air defenses and defeat of its proxies in Lebanon and Syria — “but on the other, its nuclear program is a lot more advanced. The restrictions [in a deal] will have a different utility than they did 10 years ago.”

The Trump administration source said that Witkoff is focused on the nuclear issue in the negotiations and not Iran’s broader malign actions in the Middle East.

Oren expressed concern that, with the money coming in from sanctions relief that would come with a deal, “Iran will rebuild Syria. They’ll find someone to replace [toppled Syrian President Bashar] Assad. They’ll rebuild Hezbollah and Hamas … This is who the Iranians are. No deal will change that.”

Kuperwasser encouraged engagement between Jerusalem and Washington now to prevent a weak deal. He said that “Israel first and foremost must continue its very close communications with the Americans … to ensure that what we don’t want doesn’t happen.” 

Simultaneously, he said, “we have to prepare for joint action so that there is a military option, which will increase the chances of getting what we want diplomatically. Israel and the U.S. have to increase their military capabilities so the Iranians are convinced to accept what they don’t want.”

If the Trump administration reaches an agreement with Iran that Israel views as weak, Jerusalem may have fewer channels to push back against it.

In 2015, when Israel sought to prevent the Obama administration from entering the JCPOA — because it allowed Iran to continue enrichment activity and did not address its ballistic missile program or funding proxies, among other criticisms — Capitol Hill became the main arena of debate. Pro-Israel organizations lobbied members and Netanyahu gave a speech before a joint session of Congress.

In 2025, however, it is less likely that Trump would face such challenges. Democratic members of Congress are unlikely to support a more hawkish policy on Iran, and while some GOP senators have already voiced opposition to a deal allowing Iran to enrich, few Republicans are willing to publicly speak out against the president’s policies. 

“If the deal looks like a warmed-over JCPOA,” Efron said, “it will be the biggest challenge for Israel, because unlike with Obama, Netanyahu cannot go to Congress. I think the tools at Israel’s disposal are going to be much more limited and Israel will have to be much more sophisticated to campaign against a deal.” 

Oren said that “back in 2015, Obama didn’t submit the JCPOA for congressional approval because he knew he wouldn’t get it. President Trump today could be confident that he would.”

The former ambassador suggested that, while “in the past Israel focused its efforts on Congress, today it must focus its efforts on the White House.”

Efron argued that Israel is already doing that, with Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer “directly influencing the hawks on Iran in the White House and State Department, plus the Senate, as evidenced by statements by [Sen. Lindsey] Graham [(R-SC)] and [Sen.] Tom Cotton [(R-AR)].” 

She also suggested that Israel has leaked details of Iranian weapons smuggling to the international media and will work with like-minded organizations and think tanks in Washington.

“This will continue in full force, but there won’t be a direct confrontation with Trump and his policies like there was with Obama,” she said. 

One message Oren suggested that may be effective is to focus on expanding the Abraham Accords: “President Trump wants peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the surest way not to get one is this” — a weak Iran nuclear deal, he said.

The former ambassador also pushed back against what he called “Obama’s line that it’s either diplomacy or war. That is a totally false dichotomy … It’s totally mythic. Iran has no air force, has no ground forces, has zero ability to make war against the U.S. The notion of being afraid of a war is ridiculous.”

As to whether Netanyahu’s public embrace of Trump would make things more difficult for the prime minister to counter a weak Iran nuclear deal, Efron said “it would be hard for any leader to come out against this administration’s policies.”

Efron described the situation as “complicated,” saying that Netanyahu was very influential on Trump’s Iran policy in his first term, when he withdrew from the JCPOA.

At the same time, Netanyahu’s February visit to Washington, in which Trump treated him very well and expressed seriousness about the idea of voluntary migration of Gazans, “bought [Netanyahu] the budget,” referring to the Israeli government’s passage of its budget in March. “It extended the life of his government. He got carte blanche to do what he wanted on all borders … Netanyahu has a personal debt to Trump.”

Though “Netanyahu clearly felt uncomfortable” when Trump announced Iran talks, Efron said, the Israeli leader was “in a bind.” 

“I don’t see a situation in which Iran agrees to follow the Libya model,” she added. “If Israel continues to wish for a maximalist position, it might be left with a bad agreement. Maybe there needs to be a middle ground, something more realistic but doable and politically viable.”

Kuperwasser said it was unlikely that the Trump administration would enter into a deal that is similar to the JCPOA.

“The JCPOA paved the way for Iran to have the capability to develop massive amounts of nuclear weapons, hundreds of warheads,” he said. “I’m certain Trump does not mean for that to happen. He understands that cannot happen, so I don’t think there will be tensions with the Americans like in 2015.”

“It doesn’t mean that there won’t be disagreements at some stages of the agreement,” he added.

However, Kuperwasser argued that the chance of reaching any deal with Iran is slim. “The American demands are so great that it is hard to believe the Iranians will accept them,” he said.

As such, Kuperwasser added, “We need to be ready [for a strike on Iran], maybe with American cooperation. Trump doesn’t want to do it, but maybe he will see that he has to.”

If there is a deal that Israel views as bad, Kuperwasser said, “Israel will have no choice but to accept it. I don’t see Israel preventing an American agreement by attacking Iran.”