Netanyahu’s Iran nuclear threat has entered a new phase—one where Israel’s prime minister appears more powerful than the U.S. President himself. For over a decade, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained a consistent drumbeat of warnings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, repeatedly claiming that the Islamic Republic stands mere months away from acquiring nuclear weapons. This pattern of dire predictions has become a hallmark of Netanyahu’s foreign policy rhetoric, spanning multiple U.S. administrations and serving as justification for increasingly aggressive military action.
In 2018, Netanyahu delivered a theatrical presentation claiming to have “conclusive” evidence of Iran’s nuclear deception, declaring that “Iran lied. Big time” about its nuclear program. He asserted that Israeli intelligence had obtained “55,000 pages” and “55,000 files on 183 CDs” proving Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. This presentation came as part of sustained efforts to undermine the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers.
The most recent iteration of this narrative emerged in June 2025, when Netanyahu justified Israel’s massive air assault on Iran—dubbed “Operation Rising Lion”—with familiar warnings. “If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time,” he declared during a video address, claiming that Iran had amassed sufficient highly enriched uranium for nine nuclear bombs and had recently initiated steps to “weaponize” this uranium. “Today the Jewish people refuse to be the victims of a nuclear Holocaust perpetrated by the Iranian regime,” Netanyahu stated, echoing decades of similar pronouncements.
Netanyahu’s latest military action came at a particularly sensitive moment in U.S.-Iran relations. Since April 2025, the Trump administration had been engaged in intensive negotiations with Iran through Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, marking the most serious diplomatic effort between the two nations in years. These talks, mediated by Oman, had progressed through five rounds of discussions, with both sides expressing cautious optimism about reaching a nuclear agreement.
The negotiations represented a potential foreign policy triumph for President Trump, who had campaigned on ending America’s “endless wars” and positioning himself as a dealmaker. Witkoff had been working to finalize an agreement within 60 days, though significant differences remained over Iran’s uranium stockpile and the scope of sanctions relief.
However, these diplomatic efforts were abruptly derailed when Israel launched its preemptive strikes on June 13, 2025, targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, military installations, and intelligence centers. The timing was particularly devastating, as the sixth round of negotiations had been scheduled for the following Sunday in Muscat—talks that were immediately suspended following the Israeli assault.
Iran Nuclear Threat: Netanyahu’s Pattern of Undermining U.S. Presidents
Netanyahu’s relationship with American presidents has been characterized by a pattern of public confrontation and diplomatic sabotage, spanning multiple administrations. Most notably, in March 2015, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress—invited by Republican leadership without consulting President Obama—to directly oppose the Iran nuclear negotiations.
“We’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it,” Netanyahu declared from the same podium where presidents deliver State of the Union addresses. This unprecedented breach of diplomatic protocol was widely seen as an attempt to undermine Obama’s foreign policy and rally congressional opposition to the nuclear agreement.
The pattern continued under the Biden administration, with tensions escalating to the point where U.S. intelligence agencies publicly questioned Netanyahu’s political viability. A 2024 intelligence assessment cited “deepening distrust of Netanyahu’s ability to rule” and suggested that “a different, more moderate government is a possibility“. Israeli officials accused the Biden administration of attempting to undermine Netanyahu’s government through such public assessment.
Trump’s Rejection of Israel’s Assassination Plot
In a dramatic revelation that has sent shockwaves through Washington’s foreign policy establishment, multiple U.S. officials confirmed that Israel had presented the Trump administration with a “credible plan” to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—a proposal that President Trump categorically rejected. The assassination plot, which would have marked one of the most audacious military operations in modern Middle Eastern history, was reportedly presented to the White House in recent days as Israel’s strikes against Iran were underway.
According to U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, Israeli intelligence had identified what they believed was an operational window to eliminate Khamenei during the current conflict. The plan was described as having sufficient detail and feasibility to warrant serious consideration by Israeli military planners. However, the White House made clear to Israeli officials that Trump was “opposed to the move,” viewing the assassination as a step that would “inflame the conflict and potentially destabilize the region”.
“We communicated to the Israelis that President Trump is opposed to that. The Iranians haven’t killed an American and discussion of killing political leaders should not be on the table,” a U.S. official told Axios. This stance reflected the Trump administration’s broader strategy of attempting to prevent Israel’s military operation from “exploding into an even more expansive conflict.”
The rejection of the assassination plan highlights the significant tensions between Trump’s support for Israel and his campaign promises to avoid new wars. A senior administration official emphasized that “the administration firmly believes this can be solved by negotiations with the U.S.,” underscoring the preference for diplomatic solutions over escalatory military actions.
Israeli Response and Deflection
When confronted with reports of the assassination plot during a Fox News interview, Netanyahu neither confirmed nor denied the plan’s existence, instead offering cryptic responses that seemed to acknowledge the tensions with Washington. “There are a lot of false reports about conversations that didn’t take place, and I don’t want to get into that,” Netanyahu told Fox News anchor Bret Baier. “But I can tell you, I think that we do what we need to do, we’ll do what we need to do. And I think the United States knows what is good for the United State.
Israeli National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi went further, dismissing the assassination reports as “fake news” during an interview on Israel’s Channel 12. However, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter notably did not rule out Khamenei being among potential targets when speaking on ABC News’ “This Week”.
An Israeli official told CBS News that “in principle,” Israel does not target political leaders, emphasizing their focus on nuclear and military concerns. However, the same official added ominously: “I don’t believe anyone involved in making decisions regarding those programs should be living comfortably”.
In a stunning development during his Fox News interview, Netanyahu made explosive allegations that Iran was behind two assassination attempts on President Trump during his 2024 campaign. American intelligence agencies have not publicly linked the two assassination attempts on Trump to Iran, the former president had previously hinted at Iranian involvement.
The Intelligence Community’s Assessment of the Iran Nuclear Threat
The Israeli strikes occurred despite clear assessments from U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons. In March 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that “the intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003“.
Gabbard’s testimony, which resurfaced prominently after the Israeli strikes, directly contradicted Netanyahu’s justifications for military action. She noted that while “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons,” the intelligence community maintained that Iran had not taken steps toward assembling a nuclear weapon —undermining the narrative of an imminent Iran nuclear threat.
This stark contradiction between Israeli claims and U.S. intelligence assessments highlighted the disconnect between Netanyahu’s public rhetoric and the actual threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. WikiLeaks amplified these concerns by resharing Gabbard’s testimony, questioning the rationale behind Israel’s military action
Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal: The Unspoken Reality
While Netanyahu consistently portrays Iran as an existential nuclear threat, Israel itself maintains one of the world’s most sophisticated nuclear arsenals. According to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Israel possesses approximately 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads and has produced enough plutonium for 100-200 weapons. Other estimates suggest Israel’s nuclear stockpile could range between 90 and 400 warheads.
Israel has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity regarding its nuclear capabilities, neither confirming nor denying possession of nuclear weapons while consistently stating that “Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East”. This strategic ambiguity allows Israel to maintain its nuclear deterrent while avoiding international scrutiny and non-proliferation obligations.
The contrast between Israel’s substantial nuclear arsenal and its characterization of a potentially nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat reflects the complex regional power dynamics at play. Despite possessing one of the world’s most advanced military forces and a significant nuclear deterrent, Israel continues to frame Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to its very survival.
Trump’s Diplomatic Messaging Amid Crisis
President Trump has long been a vocal critic of America’s military interventions in the Middle East, particularly the Iraq War. In 2018, he characterized the decision to invade Iraq as “the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country,” telling The Hill that “going into the Middle East, by President Bush” was worse than even the Civil War.
“We spent $7 trillion in the Middle East. Now if you wanna fix a window someplace, they say, ‘oh gee, let’s not do it. Seven trillion, and millions of lives—you know, cause I like to count both sides. Millions of lives,” Trump said, emphasizing the human and financial costs of Middle Eastern conflicts.
This critique of military intervention formed a cornerstone of Trump’s foreign policy philosophy and his repeated campaign promises to avoid new wars. Throughout his 2024 campaign, Trump consistently pledged to “prevent World War III,” warning that “we’re closer to World War III than we have ever been” and emphasizing that any such conflict would involve “levels of power and Carnage and obliteration” unprecedented in human history
On Sunday, Trump expressed optimism about the possibility of an Iran-Israel agreement, writing on Truth Social: “Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal, just like I got India and Pakistan to make…we will have PEACE, soon, between Israel and Iran! Many calls and meetings now taking place”.
Speaking to reporters before departing for the G7 Summit in Canada, Trump elaborated on his diplomatic approach. “Well, I hope there’s going to be a deal,” Trump said. “I think it’s time for a deal, and we’ll see what happens. But sometimes they have to fight it out. But we’re going to see what happens. I think there’s a good chance there will be a deal”.
Trump also revealed that he had conducted a lengthy phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday, discussing the Middle East conflict and expressing openness to Putin serving as a mediator between Iran and Israel. “I would be open to it. [Putin] is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it,” Trump told ABC News.
The MAGA Backlash: Challenging the Netanyahu Iran Nuclear Threat Claim
Israel’s strikes on Iran and the revelation of the rejected assassination plot have created an unexpected schism within Trump’s political base, with prominent MAGA figures expressing strong opposition to potential U.S. involvement in a Middle East conflict. The backlash has been swift and pointed. Netanyahu’s portrayal of the Iran nuclear threat is increasingly seen as alarmist, reflecting growing isolationist sentiment within the Republican Party’s populist wing.
Tucker Carlson, an influential voice in the MAGA movement, argued that Israel should “fight their own wars” without American backing. “If Israel wants to wage this war, it has every right to do so. It is a sovereign country, and it can do as it pleases. But not with America’s backing,” Carlson wrote in his newsletter. He warned that direct U.S. involvement would be “a middle finger in the faces of the millions of voters who cast their ballots in hopes of creating a government that would finally put the United States first”.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of Trump’s most loyal congressional supporters, expressed her opposition to the strikes with a simple message: “I’m praying for peace. Peace”. She had previously cautioned Trump against military action based on Israeli claims regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions
Charlie Kirk, a prominent Republican activist, captured the sentiment of many MAGA supporters: “I can assure you, our MAGA base is completely against any war involvement. They do not want the US to be engaged in this”. Even while maintaining his support for Israel, Kirk questioned how an “America First foreign policy doctrine” could remain consistent with backing Israeli military actions.
The Humanitarian Cost and Regional Impact
The broader context of Israel’s military actions extends far beyond the rejected assassination plot, encompassing devastating strikes across Iranian nuclear facilities and military installations. Israel targeted three key Iranian nuclear facilities—Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow—causing what Israeli officials described as “significant” damage to at least two of the sites.
Initial assessments indicate that the Israeli attacks on the Natanz facility were highly effective, disrupting power supply to underground levels where uranium-enriching centrifuges are housed. The strikes destroyed the above-ground section of the Natanz Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant, a facility operational since 2003 where Iran had been enriching uranium to levels up to 60% purity.
Iranian casualties from the Israeli strikes have mounted significantly, with reports suggesting over 400 fatalities. The conflict has also resulted in retaliatory Iranian missile strikes against Israeli targets, with at least 13 Israelis killed in the escalating exchanges.
Iran’s Response and Diplomatic Signals
Despite the escalating military confrontation and the revelation of Israel’s assassination plot, Iranian officials have signaled their willingness to pursue diplomatic solutions. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that Iran was “ready to halt its attacks on Israel if Tel Aviv ends its assault on Tehran,” emphasizing that “if the attacks cease, Iran’s retaliatory actions will also end”.
However, Araghchi also accused the United States of complicity in the Israeli attacks, citing Trump’s own statements about the strikes and claiming Iran has “solid and convincing evidence” of U.S. support for Israeli operations. The Iranian foreign minister told ambassadors in Tehran that Israel’s attacks “could not have happened without the agreement and support of the United States“.
This diplomatic opening suggests that Iran, despite its military response to Israeli strikes, remains interested in de-escalation. The cancellation of the sixth round of nuclear talks following the Israeli strikes has created additional complications, but Trump has indicated that informal communications continue.
The Broader Implications for Trump’s Legacy
The Israeli strikes on Iran and the assassination plot of its supreme leader represent a critical test of Trump’s ability to fulfill his campaign promises and maintain his image as a deal-making president who can end conflicts rather than start them. Throughout his 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly promised to “prevent World War III,” making this pledge central to his foreign policy platform.
In his inaugural address, Trump emphasized that “we will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into”. He declared that his “proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier”.
The failure to prevent the Israeli strikes on Iran, despite months of diplomatic efforts, represents a significant setback to these aspirations. The incident, driven by escalating fears over the Iran nuclear threat, has exposed the limits of American influence over its closest Middle Eastern ally and highlighted the tensions between Trump’s desire to support Israel and his commitment to avoiding new military conflicts.
As Trump faces mounting pressure from his political base to distance America from Middle Eastern conflicts, the Israeli-Iranian confrontation poses a fundamental challenge to his foreign policy doctrine. The president’s ability to navigate this crisis while maintaining both his support for Israel and his anti-war credentials will likely define his administration’s approach to Middle Eastern diplomacy and influence his political legacy.
The stakes could not be higher: with nuclear-armed powers engaged in direct military confrontation and regional allies pursuing independent military strategies, the risk of broader conflict looms large. For a president who promised to end wars rather than start them, the current trajectory suggests that the fate of Middle Eastern stability—and perhaps global peace—may indeed rest on his ability to manage Israel’s most aggressive impulses while pursuing diplomatic solutions with Iran.
