Why Israel could still derail the Iran-US deal

The temporary easing of tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and the fragile ceasefire in the region underscore a paradox: even as diplomatic breakthroughs appear within reach, the most volatile players remain unaccounted for. Israel’s looming presence over the Iran-US nuclear deal negotiations reveals a critical blind spot in what has otherwise been framed as a step toward regional stability. If the agreement, whether under Trump’s watch or any subsequent administration, fails to neutralize Israel’s opposition—or worse, if Jerusalem calculates that a military strike remains the only viable recourse—then the entire diplomatic edifice could collapse before it even takes shape. This is not mere speculation; Israel’s historical willingness to act unilaterally against perceived nuclear threats, from Osirak in 1981 to Natanz in 2021, suggests that its calculus is driven less by the terms of any deal than by the perceived existential risks it may introduce. What complicates matters further is the shifting geopolitical landscape. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a lifeline for global oil markets, reflects a temporary alignment of interests rather than a durable peace. Iran’s strategic patience is wearing thin, especially as its economy remains strangled by sanctions, while the US faces growing domestic pressure to either revive the deal or abandon it entirely. Yet neither side has fully reckoned with Israel’s role as a spoiler—one that operates outside the constraints of international diplomacy. Jerusalem’s calculus may hinge on whether it believes the deal buys Iran time to advance its nuclear program, or if it views the mere resumption of negotiations as a provocation in itself. The coming months will test whether diplomacy can outpace brinkmanship. If Israel’s red lines—likely centered on the sunset clauses of the agreement and Iran’s regional proxy network—are not addressed, the risk of a unilateral strike rises. Meanwhile, Iran’s leadership, emboldened by the ceasefire’s fragility, may redouble its efforts to entrench its nuclear capabilities, knowing that Israel’s patience is finite. The broader trend here is unmistakable: in a region where trust is a currency in short supply, the most fragile agreements are those that exclude the actors most invested in their failure. The question is no longer whether the deal is perfect, but whether it can survive the forces determined to destroy it.