In Focus delivers deeper coverage of the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has the blood of many hundreds of Americans on its hands. It actively destabilizes the Middle East and exports terrorism globally. When an undercover U.S. agent warned in 2011 that a bomb plot against Washington’s Cafe Milano might kill 100 Americans alongside the Saudi ambassador whom Iran was targeting, a handler responded, “F*** ’em.”
When asked whether the United States should use decisive force against Iran, any American who knows the nature of this regime might naturally respond, “F*** ’em.” But that’s an emotional response. American interests ultimately demand that the use of force be judged alongside broader U.S. interests. And where Iran is the unquestioned preeminent adversary of Israel, Iran is only the fourth greatest adversary of the U.S. after China, Russia, and North Korea.
This distinction in threat assessments underlines the current disagreement between the U.S. and Israel over what to do with Iran.
PENTAGON RELOCATES HAVANA SYNDROME TEAM, RAISING VICTIM CONCERNS
President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu discussed their varying perspectives at the White House on Wednesday. But their key disagreement is simple. Where Netanyahu wants Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s regime either out of power or neutered, Trump will accept an agreement that would keep Khamenei in power in exchange for limits on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.
Trump emphasized as much in a Truth Social post following the meeting. He noted that “there was nothing definitive reached other than I insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a Deal can be consummated. If it can, I let [Netanyahu] know that will be a preference. If it cannot, we will just have to see what the outcome will be.” Trump then referenced his strikes on Iran’s nuclear program in June 2025, warning Iran that it would be wise to reach an agreement.
But note Trump’s language here: “nothing definitive reached” and “insisted that negotiations with Iran continue.” Trump remains committed to giving diplomacy a chance, even under pressure from Netanyahu to abandon talks. A short Israeli readout hinted at disagreements with Trump, noting that Netanyahu had “emphasized the security needs of the State of Israel in the context of the negotiations, and the two agreed to continue their close coordination and tight contact.” Note here the focus on “needs” and “tight contact.” Here we see Israel’s concern that Trump will make a deal it dislikes.
Jerusalem’s assessment is understandable from an Israeli interest perspective.
The Iranian regime is unprecedentedly weak. Iran’s economy has collapsed, inflation is soaring, goods shortages, even of the most basic kind, are rife, and the regime is under very significant domestic and international pressure. Israel thus wants the U.S. to launch military action to degrade Iran’s nuclear program further, to destroy its ballistic missile capacities, and to eliminate Khamenei and other regime leaders. Israel views Iran as its defining nemesis — a regime that, if allowed to retain power, will eventually threaten Israel with a nuclear Holocaust.
From a U.S. perspective, however, the Iranian threat is a difficulty best managed by a balance of diplomacy, covert action, and military power. As a result of U.S. and Israeli military action last June, Iran is likely at least three years away from possessing nuclear weapons, and the intercontinental ballistic missile means of striking the U.S. homeland. Iran is at least one year from being able to build a nuclear weapon with which to threaten Israel. That gives the U.S. time to pursue diplomacy that might restrain these threats before they come to fruition.
Washington’s interest in diplomacy extends to other considerations.
Most notably, hardheaded diplomacy is far preferable to regime-change-centered use of force to America’s preeminent security interest. Namely, deterring China’s military challenge to Taiwan and U.S. power in the Pacific. China’s threat is profound. Its military now possesses the credible potential of defeating the U.S. military in a full-scale war over Taiwan. And were Taiwan to fall, the costs to U.S. security and prosperity would be catastrophic.
Making matters worse, China is surging its production of advanced warships and missile systems that rival or even overmatch U.S. capabilities. Crucially, China’s prospect of victory would be significantly advanced were the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. missile defense forces tied down and/or depleted by Iran. The deep inadequacy of the U.S. defense industrial base means that key systems, such as Terminal High Altitude Area Defense ballistic missile interceptors, wouldn’t be quickly replaceable following any conflict. Noting the expenditure of these munitions in Ukraine and Israel, Adm. Sam Paparo, the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, has noted that, “Inherently, it imposes costs on the readiness of America to respond in the Indo-Pacific region, which is the most stressing theater for the quantity and quality of munitions, because [China] is the most capable potential adversary in the world. … You know, it’s a time for straight talk.”
That speaks to a broader point. Commentators such as Fox News’s Mark Levin, who call daily for Trump to eliminate Khamenei, fail to recognize that while the U.S. could secure regime change in Iran, doing so wouldn’t just risk other contingencies. A regime change operation would also absolutely be bloody in conduct and uncertain in both duration and outcome. It would also manifestly require American troops in Iran.
This isn’t to say that Trump should give Iran his excessive latitude.
The Iranians are masters at deception and playing for time. And the president has undermined his credibility by failing to militarily enforce his red line against Iran’s slaughter of civilians in early January protests. Still, Iran’s great present weakness means that diplomacy may bear dividends previously infeasible. Khamenei may now suspend his nuclear enrichment activities and ballistic missile production if he believes that doing otherwise will invite major U.S. military action. While its nuclear and missile programs are cornerstones of Iran’s revolutionary confidence, the regime’s core objective is survival. After all, its theological raison d’être of an ever-expanding waiting room for the return of the Mahdi cannot prevail if the regime lies in ashes.
TOM ROGAN: NO COUNTRY FOR FREE MEN
The balance for Trump, then, is to find an agreement that Iran can bitterly swallow and which secures meaningful, verifiable safeguards. That means a negotiating strategy focused on big demands and practical viability versus perfect-world delusion. Iran will not, for example, surrender its right to nuclear enrichment, but it may suspend that enrichment activity on an open-ended basis and allow for expanded International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. Similarly, Iran will not surrender its ballistic missile stockpiles but may reduce those stockpiles and suspend new production activities. And while Iran will not cut off support to its terrorist proxies in the Lebanese Hezbollah and elsewhere, believing as it does that these are key instruments of its ordained agenda, it may quietly reduce its support to them and order a suspension of terrorist plotting.
Israel understandably wants its top ally to take out its nemesis. But Trump is right to give diplomacy a chance.
