Stalled U.S.–Iran talks and mounting regional tensions are exposing a growing strategic rift between Washington and Tel Aviv over how to confront Tehran, political analyst James M. Dorsey says, exposing stark differences in approach at a critical moment.

Speaking to AnewZ from Singapore, Dorsey said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes only military action and potentially regime change can secure Israel’s long-term objectives vis-à-vis Iran.

“Netanyahu wants - his preference and his belief is - that only military action and regime change will allow Israel to achieve its goals with regard to Iran,” Dorsey said.

According to Dorsey, that position contrasts with the approach of U.S. President Donald Trump, who is seeking a negotiated solution, even while maintaining the option of force.

“That’s clearly something that Trump does not necessarily share,” Dorsey said, noting that the U.S. president has emphasised for some time his desire for a diplomatic agreement. At the same time, Trump is keeping “the stick” of a significant U.S. military presence in the Middle East should he decide to take military action.

Negotiations progress

Dorsey argued that the limited progress achieved during talks in Oman last week (6 February) has sharpened questions about Washington’s next move, particularly after Trump warned of serious consequences if Iran fails to respond to U.S. demands.

• Top Iranian adviser visits mediator Oman, as Iran and U.S. prepare for talks
• Iran says Oman-mediated talks with U.S. opened well, process to continue

“It depends on what Trump defines as a successful negotiation,” Dorsey said. “The first question is: what are they negotiating about?”

In Dorsey’s assessment, the scope of negotiations will determine whether diplomacy has room to succeed.

“If it is just the nuclear issue, then there is wiggle room,” he said, arguing that compromise may be possible on key technical questions such as whether Iran can enrich uranium on its own territory and under what conditions it could retain previously enriched material.

However, Dorsey cautioned that if negotiations expand to include ballistic missiles and Iran’s network of non-state allies, the process becomes significantly more complicated.

“If the negotiations are being expanded to include particularly the issue of ballistic missiles, that becomes much more difficult,” he said.

Iran's defence potential

The expert explained that Iran’s conventional military capabilities are limited, making missiles and allied armed groups central to its deterrence strategy.

“Iran’s conventional military forces do not have an air force worth mentioning, do not have a navy worth mentioning,” he said, “The two key pillars of Iran’s defence strategy and deterrence strategy are ballistic missiles and non-state allies.”

• Iran resumes nuclear talks with U.S. as Larijani warns Netanyahu against undermining diplomacy
• 'Lift sanctions and we could dilute 60 per cent enriched uranium,' Iran energy chief says

According to Dorsey, the weakening of some of those allies over more than two years of conflict in the Middle East, particularly Hezbollah, has only increased the importance of ballistic missiles within Iran’s strategic calculus.

While Yemen’s Houthis remain operational, he suggested that Tehran’s reliance on missile capabilities has grown as other pillars of its regional posture have come under strain.

In Dorsey’s view, this strategic reality places President Trump in a delicate position. Limiting negotiations to the nuclear file could create diplomatic flexibility, while broadening the agenda to include missiles and regional proxies would strike at the heart of Iran’s deterrence doctrine.

Ultimately, Dorsey suggested that the trajectory of U.S.-Iran diplomacy will depend on how President Trump balances pressure with pragmatism, and on whether Washington and Tel Aviv can reconcile their differing visions of how to address the Iranian challenge.

Tags

News Politics Iran Israel United States Benjamin Netanyahu Donald Trump oman talks Tehran Tel-Aviv Middle East military escalation air-defence missiles defence industry nuclear power