A New York Times article disclosed disagreements between the US and Israel over a potential military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu advocated for immediate action, while President Trump opted for diplomacy. The article included previously undisclosed operational details, potentially weakening the US envoy's position in upcoming negotiations.
The article highlights the contrasting approaches of Israel and the US. While Israel pushed for a swift military response due to perceived vulnerabilities in Iran's defenses, the US, particularly the administration's 'doves', favored diplomacy, leading to the shelving of military plans. Concerns about a wider regional conflict contributed to this decision.
Iran, while outwardly professing interest in a peaceful resolution, is likely using the current situation to buy time. Iran's engagement with the IAEA is seen as a tactic to delay any potential military action, while simultaneous diplomatic outreach to Russia suggests efforts to bolster its position.
The leaked information in the New York Times article, considered 'damaging' by Israeli sources, may further complicate the upcoming negotiations. It could strengthen Iran's stance and weaken the negotiating position of the US envoy. The credibility of a military option is crucial for successful diplomacy, but the leaked details may undermine this leverage.
President Trump publicly stated his preference for diplomacy as the 'first option', but alluded to a more severe 'second option' if negotiations fail. He confirmed the focus on diplomacy but did not rule out the potential for military action if talks prove unsuccessful.