24.04.2025

He came with war plans, only to be told of talks plan

Netanyahu is rebuffed

Israel wants Iran attacked, degraded and broken. But the latest US-Iran talks make it clear who is in charge, argues Yassamine Mather

Iran and the United States have both reported progress in their second round of indirect nuclear negotiations. Talks are described as “constructive” and it has been confirmed that a third round will occur on April 26 in Oman. Technical experts will meet in the days leading up to that, indicating momentum in the discussions.

The latest talks were held in Rome, with Iranian and US delegations in separate rooms, as Omani officials mediated. Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that this time “we managed to reach a better understanding of a series of principles and goals.”

Even if these negotiations fail, the very fact that they took place must be disconcerting for Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel sees Iran as a regional rival and it certainly wants to retain its monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East. That is why Netanyahu wants war‑war, not jaw-jaw.

However, The New York Times reported that Donald Trump rebuffed Israeli proposals for a coordinated military campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities next month, favouring diplomatic engagement over military escalation.¹ According to the report, Israeli officials had developed plans - discussed with their US counterparts - for a May operation. This was contingent on American support, but internal divisions within the Trump administration ultimately led to their rejection.

Sources familiar with the proposed strikes indicated that the operation aimed to degrade Iran’s nuclear breakout capacity by at least a year. However, after months of deliberation, senior US officials reportedly reached a consensus against Israeli military action, especially after Tehran signalled that it is open to negotiations.

When Netanyahu called Trump on April 3 to discuss the situation with Iran, the US president avoided addressing operational plans and instead invited Netanyahu to Washington. During their Oval Office meeting on April 7 Trump announced the initiation of direct talks with Iran, which, in fact, commenced on April 12.

Briefed

According to officials briefed on Israel’s strategy, the proposed strikes would have required critical US involvement, both in executing the attacks and mitigating Iranian retaliation. The head of the US Central Command, general Michael E Kurilla, and national security advisor Mike Waltz reportedly engaged with Israeli officials on potential US support, leading some in Jerusalem to believe Washington might approve of the operation.

Initial plans reportedly included a joint aerial campaign supplemented by Israeli commando raids on underground nuclear sites, backed by US air cover. However, logistical complexities necessitated a streamlined approach, shifting focus to a large-scale bombing campaign. The operation would have first neutralised remaining Iranian air defences - partially degraded by Israeli strikes in 2024 - before targeting nuclear facilities directly, and probably triggering retaliatory missile strikes requiring US defensive support.

During Netanyahu’s April 7 visit - ostensibly centred on trade issues - Trump publicly diverged from Israel’s stance, announcing nuclear talks with Iran. Privately, he reportedly made clear that the US would not back an Israeli strike, while negotiations were underway.

Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon commented last week that Netanyahu had “forced his way” into two meetings with the US president and accused him of “arrogance” in trying to “force the issue”. The Israeli prime minister has been to Washington twice since Trump’s inauguration in January in a bid to lobby the White House into supporting a strike against Iran. Bannon stated: “The New York Times story plays into the ‘tail wagging the dog’. You’re not going to wag Trump. He could not be clearer.” This ‘tail wagging the dog’ idea is based on the claim that Israel, and the Israel lobby in the US are so strong, exercises so much influence, that presidents are forced to act against the objective interests of America and instead serve Israel. And, in fact, what the New York Times story conclusively shows it that the tail does not wag the dog. Whether or not the dog wags the tail is another matter … Israel is reliant, but self willed.

Following his visit to the White House, Netanyahu stated in a Hebrew video message that he and Trump both agreed that Iran must never be able to obtain nuclear weapons. He emphasised that this could only be ensured through a deal that not just restricts, but completely dismantles Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Netanyahu argued that a diplomatic solution would only work if it mirrored Libya’s 2003 nuclear disarmament, where US forces dismantled or removed all components of the country’s nuclear programme: “We enter, destroy the facilities, and take apart all the equipment - under US oversight and execution. That’s the right approach.” However, he warned that, if diplomacy fails and Iran prolongs negotiations, “then the only remaining option is military action. Everyone knows this.” He claimed that he and Trump had extensively discussed this possibility.

Key ally

According to reports, the Oval Office meeting was tense, particularly regarding Iran. A US official said: “Trump and Netanyahu have very different views on a potential military strike against Iran … The president seemed to enjoy pushing back on him about Iran. Their private discussion mirrored their public dynamic.”

Nevertheless, do not expect any reduction in US political, military and economic support for its key Middle Eastern ally, Israel - which is America’s unsinkable aircraft carrier in the region. Trump will support Israel the way he chooses, with US long-term interests in mind, as opposed to doing what the current Zionist government tells him.

In the last few months as the threat of war against Iran has become more serious, some Iranians, both inside and outside Iran, including some claiming to be on the left, have repeated the notion that US foreign policy is directed entirely by the Israeli lobby. In making such allegations they cite authorities such as John J Mearsheimer, the Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. His initial article pushing the ‘tail wags the dog’ idea, which first appeared in the London Review of Books, provoked strong reactions - both criticism and praise.²

This was followed by a book authored jointly with Stephen M Walt, The Israel lobby and US foreign policy, where they expanded upon the original argument, incorporating developments in Lebanon and Iran.³ They examined the extraordinary level of US material and diplomatic support for Israel and argued that this cannot be fully justified by either strategic interests or moral values. Instead, they attribute it largely to the influence of a broad, informal network of individuals and organisations working to steer US foreign policy in favour of Israel. In other word’s the Israel lobby.

The authors claim that the lobby’s influence extends widely across the US Policy in the Middle East - including in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - often does not align with either America’s national interest or Israel’s long-term wellbeing. They also suggest that this influence wielded by the lobby complicates the US relationship with other allies and heightens global risks, including those posed by “jihadist terrorism”.

Michael Massing, writing in The New York Review, noted that the original article had an impact comparable to Samuel Huntington’s ‘The clash of civilizations?’ published by Foreign Affairs way back in 1993.⁴ However, critics like Walter Russell Mead argued that the authors’ “realist” perspective, which typically downplays domestic influences on foreign policy, is inconsistent with their emphasis on the lobby’s domestic political power. Others, including Noam Chomsky, contended that Mearsheimer and Walt overstated the lobby’s influence and neglected other factors shaping US Middle East policy, such as its own strategic and economic interests.

In reality, it is clear that the notion that it was the Israeli lobby which played a key role in US policy - even regarding the war in Iraq - is doubtful, to say the least. At the time Israel was in favour of a war against Iran and the Israeli lobby was expressing concerns that the coming to power of a Shia government in Baghdad would strengthen the position of Iran’s Islamic Republic. However, irrespective of all this, the current position of the Trump administration and the obvious disappointment of Netanyahu with the continuation of the bilateral nuclear talks between the United States and Iran makes a mockery of such claims.

Racism

Yes, inevitably, some go further and make stupid and deeply reactionary comments about the power of “Jewish capital”. Of course, such arguments edge towards anti-Semitism and only harm the Palestinians, who in their just struggle for an independent homeland have mostly avoided anti-Semitism.

In Iran, historically, we have witnessed elements of racism among sections of the population towards Arabs. This is related to Iranian nationalism, tracing back to the Arab invasion of the 7th century, which led to the fall of the Sasanian empire and the spread of Islam into Persia. Some of the work of Iran’s legendary poet, Ferdowsi, memorised by both educated and even illiterate Iranians, is clearly racist.

As Hamid Dabashi puts it,

This racism is not limited to the history of the Islamic Republic and extends well into the Pahlavi period and before it to the Qajar dynasty, when leading Iranian intellectuals, ranging from Mirza Aqa Khan Kermani to Sadeq Hedayat, harboured the most pernicious anti-Arab racism. They categorically attributed what they thought was Iranian backwardness to Islam, Islam to Arabs, Arabs to fanaticism and stupidity, and thus began ludicrously to celebrate a lopsided reading of pre-Islamic Iranian history that was informed mostly by the figment of their perturbed imagination.⁵

Some academics believe this historical background explains the failure of Iranians to rally in support of Palestinians. However, one thing is clear: in Iran, there is no deep-seated history of racism specifically directed at Jews. The term Sami (Semite) in Farsi refers to both Arabs and Jews, and in Iran it has traditionally been used only in reference to anti-Arab sentiments. So the repetition, by the Islamic Republic and its apologists, of claims by people like Mearsheimer and others regarding the power of the Israeli lobby should be seen in the light of current political interests.

However, as always, we must draw clear lines between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism - and those on the left who repeat the idea that Israel determines US foreign policy fall, sometimes inadvertently, into the trap of anti-Semitism.