Diplomacy is often portrayed as a contest between adversaries sitting across a negotiating table. Yet the real challenge frequently lies elsewhere: persuading allies that compromise is preferable to confrontation. As Washington once again explores a diplomatic path with Tehran, the most difficult party to manage may not be Iran. It may be Israel. This is not because Israel lacks legitimate security concerns. Iran’s missile program, support for armed non-state actors and decades of hostile rhetoric have shaped Israeli strategic thinking. Any Israeli government, irrespective of its political complexion, would be expected to view an Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat. Those concerns are taken seriously by Israel. However, legitimate concerns do not automatically translate into identical policy preferences. The United States seeks to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon while avoiding another costly Middle Eastern war. Israel has often argued that diplomatic agreements merely delay the problem, providing Tehran with economic relief while allowing it to preserve elements of its nuclear infrastructure. This divergence in strategic outlook has repeatedly complicated negotiations. History offers ample evidence. During the negotiations that produced the 2015 nuclear agreement, opposition from Israel was not confined to private diplomacy. It became an unusually public campaign aimed at influencing American political opinion and Congress. Even after the agreement was concluded, Israeli leaders continued to argue that it legitimized rather than dismantled Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The subsequent US withdrawal from the accord reflected multiple domestic and strategic considerations, but Israeli objections remained an important part of the political environment surrounding the deal. Today’s negotiations face an even more difficult landscape. Regional tensions are higher, trust between Washington and Tehran is lower, and the military option appears........

© The Patriot