Significant gaps remain between the United States and Iran in ongoing negotiations over a possible deal to end the conflict, with Israeli officials expressing concern over how much President Donald Trump is prepared to concede and raising unresolved questions about monitoring and uranium enrichment.
Senior Israeli officials said there has been some movement in talks, but not necessarily toward a breakthrough, with progress largely driven by pressure. They noted that each passing day puts more strain on the Iranian economy, but also affects Trump, with gas prices in the United States remaining high and Republicans growing concerned as they watch polls ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks with President Donald Trump nearly every day, with their last conversation taking place late Wednesday night into Thursday. Trump recently said there is a "very good chance" of reaching an agreement with Iran and suggested that Iran's enriched uranium stockpile could be transferred to the United States.
Reports from the United States indicate both sides are close to finalizing a short, 14-point understanding document that would formally end the latest confrontation and open a 30-day window for detailed negotiations on the nuclear program, sanctions and the Strait of Hormuz.
Critical Monitoring Questions Unresolved
Israeli officials identified several key issues that remain unresolved, especially monitoring mechanisms. They asked whether Iran would allow surprise inspections, whether monitoring would be stricter than those in the Obama agreement, and whether the freeze on uranium enrichment would be permanent or only a temporary limit on enrichment levels. These are described as critical questions for Jerusalem.
The officials emphasized that if Iran retains its knowledge, infrastructure and centrifuges even under a temporary freeze, it could quickly resume progress toward developing a military nuclear capability in the future. This concern reflects the fundamental challenge in nuclear negotiations: verifying not just current compliance, but preventing future proliferation.
The Enrichment Stalemate
The core issue in the negotiations centers on enriched uranium. The United States is insisting on a complete freeze of uranium enrichment for an extended period, coupled with the removal of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Publicly, Iran says these demands are far from acceptable, with a senior member of the Iranian parliament describing the draft as "the US wish list."
Israeli officials said the debate is not only about whether Iran will halt enrichment for a specific timeframe, but what Iran will retain afterward. They noted this was the same discussion during the Obama agreement, and that allowing Iran to keep its enrichment capabilities, including its centrifuges and knowledge, would leave it able to resume enrichment whenever it chooses.
Multi-Phase Agreement Raises Red Flags
According to Israeli estimates, the Americans are currently advocating a multi-phase agreement model, with an initial agreement now and more difficult issues postponed for later. Jerusalem officials view that as a warning sign, saying multi-phase agreements are used when a tangible agreement cannot be reached.
Israeli officials said that is what they observed in Gaza, where unresolved disputes were kicked down the road. Their concern is that the first phase would effectively become the main agreement, possibly involving lifting some sanctions, allowing money to flow into Iran and prompting the international community to celebrate a "historic breakthrough" while critical issues remain unaddressed.
Israeli sources said the current situation is not necessarily unfavorable for Israel because no agreement has been reached, sanctions remain in place and there is no direct escalation between Israel and its adversaries at this time. They said that if the situation could continue for months, it would not be a bad situation from Israel's perspective, but that it cannot go on indefinitely.
Behind the scenes, Israel is trying to assess how committed Trump really is to the positions he has outlined, and whether he is presenting his final stance or leaving room to maneuver until the last moment. Israeli analysts said Trump is looking for a deal that can be marketed as a quick diplomatic victory, and that the Iranians have not offered him enough for him to declare a deal.
Israeli sources said the worst-case scenario for Israel is a bad deal, and that any deal giving Iran money without dismantling its enrichment capabilities is problematic.
Why This Matters:
These negotiations illustrate the tension between seeking diplomatic resolution and ensuring security commitments are verifiable and durable. The structural flaws Israeli officials identify—temporary freezes without dismantling capabilities, phased agreements that defer hard choices, and the risk of sanctions relief flowing to Iran before critical issues are resolved—reflect enduring challenges in arms control agreements. The domestic political pressure Trump faces from high gas prices and midterm election concerns may create incentives to declare a deal prematurely, regardless of whether core security questions have been adequately addressed. The distinction between temporary enrichment limits and permanent dismantling of enrichment infrastructure represents the difference between managing a problem short-term and actually solving it. How these negotiations conclude will signal whether international agreements on nuclear proliferation can enforce meaningful restrictions or whether they function primarily as symbolic diplomatic gestures.