Israel’s 3 Dangerous Scenarios for Dealing With Iran’s Nuclear Program

As US-Iran nuclear talks officially resume — despite heavy Israeli lobbying for confrontation — senior Israeli analysts are outlining three dangerous scenarios Tel Aviv may pursue in response to Iran’s advancing nuclear program.

According to Tamir Hayman, former head of Israel’s Military Intelligence Directorate (Aman), Israel is entering what he called a “summer of triple decisions” — choices that could drastically reshape the geopolitical landscape.

Scenario 1: A New Nuclear Deal With Iran

The first path sees a new nuclear deal materialising — the kind that former US President Barack Obama pursued in 2015 and current President Donald Trump now seeks to renegotiate. Under this agreement, Iran would roll back its nuclear ambitions in exchange for sanctions relief and economic reintegration.

But Hayman warns: “There is no trust in the Iranian regime.” He argues that instead of reform, the Islamic Republic would likely use the funds to bolster its military power and strengthen its grip on the region. The Obama-era theory that opening Iran to the world would moderate its policies now seems “naïve.”

Scenario 2: Military Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Sites

The second scenario involves a unilateral Israeli military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. It’s an option Israel has long kept on the table.

While such an operation could delay Tehran’s nuclear ambitions by several years, Hayman cautions that the strike may ultimately backfire. “A wide-scale strike won’t erase the program — it will delay it,” he explains. Worse, it may push Iran to accelerate its nuclear development under the logic that only a nuclear deterrent can prevent future attacks.

A successful strike would require not just precise intelligence and operational flexibility but long-term coordination with the US for follow-up waves of action.

Scenario 3: Toppling the Iranian Regime

The third scenario involves intensifying economic and political pressure on Iran to collapse the regime from within. This would mean supporting internal dissent, amplifying socio-economic unrest, and capitalising on Iran’s brain drain and growing secularisation.

But even here, Hayman warns of complications: “Trump’s maximum pressure campaign backfired — it only made Iran’s resistance economy more self-reliant.” Despite sanctions, Tehran adapted to survive — and continues to build its influence.

The Hybrid Strategy

Ultimately, Hayman argues that Israel may have to blend all three strategies: credible military threats to force Iran to the negotiating table, a tough sanctions regime to weaken the regime, and international diplomacy to extract a comprehensive deal.

“Easy to say,” he admits. “Hard to do.”

Why It Matters

The debate over Iran’s nuclear future is far from academic. A miscalculation in Tehran or Tel Aviv could plunge the region into another catastrophic war. As Washington juggles nuclear diplomacy with Tehran and crisis management with Tel Aviv, the clock is ticking. The end of 2025 may mark a decisive moment — not just for Iran and Israel, but for the entire Middle East.

We don’t run ads. We run on dua, dedication, and your support. Help us stay online

Click here to Donate