The intelligence offensive and the dismantling of the nuclear deal
Maximum pressure and shared deterrence across the regional chessboard
Strategic debate: Between external persuasion and intrinsic conviction
The relationship between the United States and Israel during Donald Trump’s presidency marked one of the periods of closest strategic and political alignment between Washington and Tel Aviv in recent Middle Eastern history.
Historic decisions such as the unilateral US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the reimposition of crippling economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation, and the targeted assassination of General Qasem Soleimani fundamentally reshaped the regional balance of power.
However, beneath this hardening of the American posture lies an ongoing analytical debate over the extent to which assessments, warnings, and intelligence dossiers presented by the Government of Israel shaped, accelerated, and decisively influenced the White House’s determinations.
A supporter of an Iran-backed militia holds a poster of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and Deputy Commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis during a protest by pro-Iranian militiamen and their supporters – AP/ NABIL AL-JURANI
The intelligence offensive and the dismantling of the nuclear deal
Ever since the JCPOA was signed in 2015 under Barack Obama’s administration, the Israeli political and security establishment regarded the agreement as a historic error that failed to curb Tehran’s long-term nuclear ambitions, limit its ballistic missile programme, or rein in its regional influence. With Trump’s arrival in office in 2017, Tel Aviv found an administration receptive to fundamentally overhauling Western strategy.
The turning point arrived in the spring of 2018, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly presented prime-time documentation obtained by the Mossad from Iran’s so-called “secret nuclear archive” in Tehran.
That intelligence operation, shared in advance with US intelligence and the US Department of Defense, served as the core rationale for Trump’s formal withdrawal from the nuclear accord days later. For the Israeli Executive, the files demonstrated that Iran had concealed work related to nuclear weapons development; for critics, the manoeuvre sought to force a diplomatic rupture that closed off any multilateral understanding within the United Nations (UN).
Former President of the United States, Barack Obama – PHOTO/PIXABAY
Maximum pressure and shared deterrence across the regional chessboard
Washington’s adoption of the “maximum pressure” campaign coordinated by the US Department of State almost entirely aligned US tactical objectives with Israel’s security priorities. Throughout that mandate, liaison channels between the security and intelligence agencies of both nations operated at full capacity. Israeli warnings regarding Iranian military entrenchment in Syria, the supply of precision-guided missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon, and asymmetric drone attacks on Gulf maritime routes reinforced the White House’s conviction that containment of Tehran had to be head-on.
This dynamic of sensitive information sharing culminated in early 2020 with the operation that killed Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad, an action that pushed regional military tensions to historic highs while demonstrating the level of coordination and weight that imminent threat reports carried in the US President’s decision-making process.
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa with US President Donald Trump at the White House on 10 November 2025 for unprecedented talks – PHOTO/ SANA
Strategic debate: Between external persuasion and intrinsic conviction
Assessing whether Israel leveraged its warnings about Iran to steer Washington presents two complementary perspectives:
The direct influence thesis: Argues that Israeli public diplomacy and classified dossiers actively stoked threat perceptions within Trump’s national security team, pushing it toward confrontation without a clear diplomatic off-ramp.
The convergence of independent interests: Suggests that the Trump administration already harboured an intensely critical, revisionist view of international accords and Tehran’s regime, meaning information supplied by Tel Aviv acted as a catalyst and empirical backing for policies the White House was already predisposed to implement.
The legacy of those determinations continues to shape the Middle Eastern security architecture. Israeli insistence on the futility of containing Iran through purely diplomatic channels laid the groundwork for a regional realignment that facilitated the Abraham Accords with Arab states, while simultaneously entrenching an open confrontation dynamic that continues to define international relations.