Israel’s Strategic Deterrence ‘Evaporates’ If Region Goes Nuclear
As US–Iran talks intensify and Tehran blocks nuclear inspections, Israeli experts warn of a coming shift in deterrence, diplomacy, and the Middle East’s nuclear equation
A rift has surfaced within Israel’s top leadership: Mossad Director David Barnea has reportedly expressed strong opposition to the emerging deal. At the same time, Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer has taken a more appeasing stance in talks with Trump’s envoy, Steven Witkoff. The combined developments have intensified fears that a new agreement may advance—without Israeli input, and at Israel’s expense.
In in-depth interviews with The Media Line, Haim Asa, former strategic adviser to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and expert in national security and deterrence doctrine, and Professor Eytan Gilboa, expert on US–Israel relations at Bar-Ilan University and Senior Research Associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, offer stark but refined assessments of what could become a transformative moment for Israeli national security.
If the region goes nuclear—Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia— Israel’s qualitative edge evaporates. And we don’t know who will control these regimes in ten years. It’s a dangerous domino effect.
“If the region goes nuclear—Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia— Israel’s qualitative edge evaporates,” Gilboa warned. “And we don’t know who will control these regimes in ten years. It’s a dangerous domino effect.”
While the two agree that a nuclear Iran is a dangerous reality Israel may soon have to live with, their interpretations of how to respond diverge sharply between strategic accommodation and military readiness.
The fact that the US and Iran are engaging in direct talks is, in itself, a success. In direct negotiations, you can achieve better outcomes. I give credit to Trump for opening that door.
“The fact that the US and Iran are engaging in direct talks is, in itself, a success,” said Asa. “In direct negotiations, you can achieve better outcomes. I give credit to Trump for opening that door.”
Though unorthodox in his framing, Asa emphasizes that diplomacy, even flawed, is vastly preferable to regional conflict. “I prefer a nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran over a violent confrontation. That’s a trade I would make any day,” he said. “Israel cannot fight forever. People here need to live.”
Gilboa, one of Israel’s foremost experts on US–Israel relations, concurs that both parties want a deal—but warns that their positions remain fundamentally misaligned. “The US is signaling that it’s serious this time. They’ve moved military assets into the region, including bunker-buster munitions delivered to Israel. That’s not just posturing—it’s part of restoring credibility to the military threat.”
Iran, meanwhile, is weakened. It has lost key elements of its regional ‘Ring of Fire’—its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq have all been compromised. That’s why it’s now willing to return to the table.
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Please support TML's boots on the ground.Donate
He adds, “Iran, meanwhile, is weakened. It has lost key elements of its regional ‘Ring of Fire’—its proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq have all been compromised. That’s why it’s now willing to return to the table.”
Despite this momentum, Gilboa sees danger in a potential US–Iran deal that resembles the 2015 JCPOA too closely. “Trump is moving toward something very similar to the Obama-era deal, but with even less time. Had the JCPOA not been canceled, it would have expired this year. Now we’re back to a countdown with even greater urgency,” he said.
The key flaw, according to Gilboa, is that Iran is already enriching uranium to 60%—well beyond the civilian threshold of 3.67%—and may be weeks away from breakout. “When Iran claims its enrichment is peaceful, that’s a lie. They’re lying and cheating all over the place,” he said. “That uranium must be removed from Iranian territory, period.”
Even if you destroy 70% or 80% of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Russia and China will help them rebuild everything within a year or two. We’ll be right back where we started. Are we going to bomb them again?
Haim Asa believes military solutions are no longer viable. “Even if you destroy 70% or 80% of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Russia and China will help them rebuild everything within a year or two,” he argued. “We’ll be right back where we started. Are we going to bomb them again?”
He warns that the Israeli public needs to start understanding the shift already underway. “We are entering a phase of mutual nuclear deterrence with Iran, whether we like it or not,” Asa said. “Israel has to stop seeing every problem through a military lens. It’s time for diplomacy, normalization, and difficult political choices.”
This is not the Cold War. Iran is not the Soviet Union. It’s an ideological regime with global Islamic ambitions. Can it be deterred? That’s an open question.
Gilboa is less optimistic about deterrence. “This is not the Cold War. Iran is not the Soviet Union. It’s an ideological regime with global Islamic ambitions. Can it be deterred? That’s an open question,” he said. “The risk isn’t just Iranian nuclear weapons—it’s nuclear material in the hands of terror proxies. That’s the nightmare scenario.”
Both experts criticize Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-standing approach to Iran. “He made a strategic mistake by lobbying for the cancellation of the original deal in 2015,” Asa stated. “And he never paid a political price for it.”
Gilboa noted that Netanyahu now finds himself sidelined: “In 2015, he spoke before Congress against Obama. That won’t happen now. He praised Trump as Israel’s greatest friend—he cannot challenge him publicly. Trump will impose the deal, and Netanyahu will have no choice but to accept it.”
Leaks from Israeli officials suggesting potential independent strikes have likely backfired. “Trump already blocked one of Netanyahu’s plans,” Gilboa revealed. “He won’t tolerate a rogue Israeli move during negotiations.”
Amid all this, Saudi Arabia is quietly pursuing its own nuclear ambitions. “They’re building a dual-use infrastructure under the guise of peaceful energy,” said Gilboa. “But make no mistake: If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia will want one too—and they’ve invested in Pakistan’s program to prepare for that.”
It’s not ideal, but if Saudi Arabia becomes nuclear without normalization, it’s not the end of the world. Look at India and Pakistan—nuclear parity has prevented direct wars. But everything depends on who governs Riyadh.
Asa views the issue through the lens of deterrence. “It’s not ideal, but if Saudi Arabia becomes nuclear without normalization, it’s not the end of the world,” he said. “Look at India and Pakistan—nuclear parity has prevented direct wars. But everything depends on who governs Riyadh.”
Both Asa and Gilboa outlined clear, if conflicting, paths forward for Israel.
Gilboa insists on strategic coordination with Washington. “First, be honest. Netanyahu is not known for that. Share intelligence. Don’t act unilaterally. And be ready—if the deal fails, Trump may greenlight a military operation. Israel must be prepared.”
Asa argues for a conceptual overhaul. “Israel must move from a force-based doctrine to one rooted in diplomacy, regional cooperation, and normalization,” he said. “We need a deal with Saudi Arabia. We need a deal with the Palestinians. The war treadmill has to stop.”
While Asa and Gilboa offer divergent strategies—one diplomatic, the other defensive—they converge on one warning: time is running out for Israel to define its role in a rapidly changing Middle East.
“The Americans understand where this is going,” Asa concluded. “It’s time Israelis understand it too.”
Gilboa added, “If we fail to prepare for both a bad agreement and its collapse, we may find ourselves facing a nuclear threshold Iran—and no viable strategy left.”
