Israeli Analyst Urges Diplomatic Shift: Resume Nuclear Talks with Iran

Watan-Ofer Shelah, an Israeli researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University and a former Knesset member, has called for a pivot from military operations to diplomacy and giving Washington a chance to reach a nuclear agreement with Iran.

In an article published on Channel 12’s website, Shelah references Israel’s National Security Council chief, Tzachi Hanegbi—one of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s closest allies—who admitted: “Israel does not have the capability to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program by force. The goal should be to weaken Iran and force it back to the negotiating table, accepting strict constraints that could delay, if not eliminate, their nuclear ambitions.”

Hanegbi acknowledged that Israel doesn’t currently aim to decapitate Iran’s leadership and admitted the obvious: “We cannot overthrow the regime of the Ayatollahs.” While targeted assassinations of military and IRGC figures may have disrupted Iran’s short-term response, he said they wouldn’t destabilize the regime itself.

He warned, “This is an authoritarian regime, but it is deeply rooted in a country of 90 million. Only the Iranian people can bring it down. Our actions may show it as weakened, but let’s be modest: this might even bolster the regime in the short term.”

What’s Next?

Shelah, known for his critical perspective, raises the question: what now? He argues two overlooked factors must be considered. First, coordination with Washington has been relatively narrow. While Trump appears to have approved the Israeli operation, it wasn’t part of a broader strategy—neither a joint military campaign nor a diplomatic plan led by the U.S.

According to Shelah, Trump’s stance reveals a different picture. His base, which embraces isolationism, has criticized involvement in “others’ wars.” Trump likely approved the strike as an Israeli move with U.S. defensive backing, similar to the Gaza model. Any hope of American intervention to resolve the war is misplaced optimism.

Second, Shelah stresses the gap between Israel’s leadership and its public. While political and security elites operate in closed circles of optimism, the Israeli public is left facing the realities of daily war—missile sirens, rising casualties, and no clear end in sight.

He notes that recent Iranian missile barrages have exposed the limits of Israeli defense systems. Whether casualties are light or heavy comes down to luck, not strategy.

Strategic Crossroads

Shelah believes Israel, once again, has launched a long-planned military path without a clear vision for a political outcome—this time with even heavier implications. The attack on Hezbollah and Iran’s confrontation with the U.S. presented both a strategic and operational opportunity. However, this opportunity risks becoming an end in itself.

He warns that Iran is not Gaza, and its nuclear infrastructure isn’t comparable to Hezbollah’s missile network. The conflict with Iran won’t end quickly. Shelah cites late Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who warned 14 years ago that a unilateral Israeli strike might only serve as justification for Iran to accelerate its nuclear program.

Even Hanegbi concedes that Israel cannot fully destroy Iran’s nuclear project alone.

Final Recommendation

Shelah concludes that Israel must now reach a decisive crossroads: if the U.S. will not fully join the offensive, then Israel must immediately shift to a political campaign. The goal should be to secure and institutionalize whatever limited gains were made—if any—in Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Contrary to the prevailing pro-war sentiment, Shelah calls for resuming negotiations with Iran and leading a regional security architecture to counter a weakened Iranian axis. This must include ending the war in Gaza and retrieving the hostages—rather than gambling repeatedly without a plan for victory while facing mounting human and political costs.