Tensions are emerging between Jerusalem and the Trump administration over Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff's efforts to pursue diplomatic engagement with Tehran, according to Israel Hayom reports.
Israeli security officials have expressed frustration with what they characterize as premature diplomatic overtures toward Iran, arguing that such initiatives could undermine the sustained pressure campaign that has weakened Tehran's regional position. The friction highlights diverging strategic assessments between Washington and Jerusalem over how to manage the Iranian nuclear threat and Tehran's support for proxy forces across the region.
Witkoff, a real estate developer and longtime associate of Donald Trump, was appointed as special envoy to the Middle East following Trump's return to office. While his initial focus centered on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and securing the release of hostages from Gaza, sources indicate he has increasingly advocated for exploring diplomatic channels with Iran.
Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of bilateral relations, argue that the timing of such diplomacy risks rewarding Iran at a moment when the regime faces internal economic challenges, regional isolation, and setbacks to its nuclear program. They contend that maximum pressure—combining sanctions enforcement, covert operations, and credible military deterrence—remains the most effective approach to constraining Tehran's nuclear ambitions and regional aggression.
In Israel, as across contested regions, security concerns and aspirations for normalcy exist in constant tension. The disagreement reflects deeper questions about America's role in Middle East security architecture and whether diplomatic engagement can succeed where pressure has failed.
The friction comes at a delicate moment in US-Israeli relations. While the Trump administration has historically maintained strong support for Israel, differences over Iran policy have periodically strained the partnership. Previous administrations, including Trump's first term, withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reimposed sanctions, a move Israel strongly supported. Any renewed diplomatic engagement would mark a significant policy shift.
Israeli intelligence assessments suggest that Iran has continued advancing its nuclear program despite international pressure, bringing it closer to breakout capability—the point at which it could rapidly produce weapons-grade uranium. Jerusalem views this development as an existential threat, one that justifies maintaining maximum economic and diplomatic isolation of the regime.
The debate also intersects with broader regional dynamics. Israel has significantly expanded its ties with Arab states through the Abraham Accords, normalization agreements that were partly motivated by shared concerns about Iranian hegemony. Israeli officials worry that visible US engagement with Tehran could complicate efforts to expand these agreements, particularly with Saudi Arabia, which has its own complex calculus regarding Iran.
Witkoff's approach reportedly emphasizes the potential for negotiations to prevent military escalation and create space for regional de-escalation. Proponents of engagement argue that even unsuccessful diplomacy clarifies intentions and can build international support for tougher measures if talks fail. However, skeptics in Israel's security establishment view this logic as dangerously naive, arguing that Tehran uses negotiations to buy time while advancing its strategic objectives.
The disagreement has not yet escalated into open public criticism, reflecting both countries' interest in managing differences privately. However, the underlying tension illustrates the challenge of aligning two allies with overlapping but not identical security priorities. For Israel, Iran represents an immediate existential threat warranting aggressive countermeasures. For Washington, the calculus includes broader geopolitical considerations, including the need to manage multiple global challenges simultaneously.
As the situation develops, the question remains whether diplomatic channels can bridge the strategic gap or whether the divergence will deepen into a more significant policy disagreement. For now, Israeli officials continue to monitor Witkoff's activities closely, engaging in quiet efforts to shape the conversation and ensure that any engagement with Tehran does not compromise core security interests.
