For months, I have said this in every possible forum: the negotiations between Trump and the Iranians were never truly about reaching an agreement. They were about legitimacy. A sophisticated smokescreen. A strategic deception on a global scale.

On the surface, Trump presented responsible leadership to the world. He spoke about diplomacy, about exhausting talks, about giving negotiations every possible chance. He allowed Europe to feel involved, gave Russia and China room to maneuver, and sent a clear message to the American public: I did everything possible to avoid war.

But simultaneously—beneath the public radar—a war machine was being assembled. Not rhetorical threats. Not symbolic exercises. A real campaign. Intelligence coordination, logistical preparation, force deployment, armament, and an unprecedented deepening of cooperation with Israel.

The strategy was dual: create international legitimacy—while preparing the ground for the day of action.

Anyone familiar with Trump’s operational style understands this: he pushes to the edge, but only when he controls the arena. The talks with Tehran served him well. They portrayed him as a leader seeking peace. They enabled him to say, the moment a campaign begins: I gave them a chance. They refused. Now there is a price to pay.

And that is the central point—“on the road to making them pay.”

At the same time, Israel demonstrated unprecedented strength. Precise intelligence, deep penetration, complex operations, technological and covert capabilities that place it among the world’s most operationally advanced nations. Not merely gathering information—but shaping reality. Israel proved once again that it does not merely respond to events; it designs them.

Equally important was the coordination. The U.S.–Israel alliance was not a slogan. It was deep synchronization—political, intelligence-based, military, and psychological. Two leaders recognizing that the confrontation with Iran was not another round—it was a historic crossroads.

And that crossroads creates opportunity.

The Iranian regime is internally weaker than ever. A collapsing economy, a frustrated younger generation, an opposition waiting for a spark. When external pressure intersects with internal erosion, the possibility of real change emerges. Not through occupation. Not through imposition. But through the natural unraveling of a regime that has lost its legitimacy.

For the Iranian people, this may be the greatest historic opportunity in decades—to free themselves from the Revolutionary Guards, from repression, from the rule of the ayatollahs. To restore Iran as a civil state, a regional power connected to the world.

If that happens, the Middle East will fundamentally transform.

An Iranian–Israeli peace, which today sounds improbable, would become possible. Saudi Arabia is already positioned there. Lebanon could free itself from Hezbollah’s shadow. Syria would be forced to choose a new direction. The regional alliance map would be redrawn—not around a terror axis, but around stability and development.

This is not naïve optimism. It is strategic logic: dismantle the head of the octopus—and the entire system changes.

That is why I argued from the outset: Trump was not heading toward an agreement. He was heading toward a campaign. Not recklessly, but methodically. First legitimacy. Then strength. First negotiations. Then maneuver.

And if this path leads to regime change in Iran, to regional peace agreements, to long-term stability—then yes, the road to a Nobel Peace Prize would not be unreasonable.

Not because war was avoided—but because it was managed in a way that creates peace.

Sometimes, to reach white smoke, one must pass through the smoke of war

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)