Some Israelis favor to attack Iran, expressing skepticism on the interviews
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has in the past listed the three main threats that Israel such as “Iran, Iran and Iran” have to face. He largely aimed at his career to be the protector of Israel against Iranian nuclear ambitionshas openly faced the country In recent months and is at war with Militias supported by Iran throughout the region.
Many Israelis were therefore surprised when President Trump, with Mr. Netanyahu sitting in a support role next to him, announced on Monday that the United States It would be committed to “direct” negotiations With Iran Saturday in an effort of the last moat to curb the country’s nuclear program.
Mr. Trump’s statement was spladhed on Front pages of the main newspapers of Israel on Tuesday morning. With the passage of the day, the experts have increasingly weighed, analyzing the pros and cons of unexpected development.
With the Iranian nuclear program considered In its most advanced phase Never, some Israeli experts have suggested that it would now be the perfect time to attack Iran’s nuclear structures. The traditional allies of Iran on the borders of Israel – Hezbollah, the Lebanese group and Syria – are now weakened and any attack could take advantage of Tehran’s vulnerability later Israeli blows in autumn He eliminated the aerial defenses around key nuclear sites.
If direct interviews took place, they would be the first official face -to -face negotiations between the two countries from Trump abandoned the nuclear agreement of the Obama era Seven years ago at the request of Mr. Netanyahu, who had denounced him as a “bad deal”.
Netanyahu declared in the oval office on Monday that he and Mr. Trump had discussed Iran and were “united in the goal” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. If this could be done diplomatically, absolutely, he said, “it would be a good thing”.
Many Israelis would agree.
“Ideal for Israel would be an excellent agreement,” said YouT Guzensky, senior researcher and head of the Gulf program at the Institute for National Security Studies at the University of Tel Aviv. He said he hoped that Mr. Trump’s approach was “more aggressive” than that of previous administrations in relations with Iran.
“But there is nothing ideal in the world,” added Guzensky, expressing concerns widely that Mr. Trump “can be willing to be more flexible than Israel would be” and that a gap could open up to the question between Israel and Washington.
The interests of the two sides already differ, said Guzensky, as Israel is located near Iran and must live with its delegates on its borders, while the United States are thousands of miles away and have other urgent problems. He said he hoped that Mr. Netanyahu continued to have the administration’s ear and was held on stage.
Some Israeli analysts were banks on these talks that fail, observing that Iranians are difficult negotiators.
Many took the consolation in the declaration of Mr. Trump according to which Tehran was “in great danger” if he had not reached an agreement and indicated the news of the recent deployment of the Pentagon of at least six B-2 bombers on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia as proof of a military option against Iran.
“There is no possibility that the Ayatollah agree to dictate,” wrote Ariel Kahana, a diplomatic commentator for Israel Hayom, a right -wing newspaper, anticipating the imposition of the Trump administration of difficult conditions on Iran for an agreement.
“Therefore”, Kahana continued, “a military clash with Iran is only a matter of time”.
