According to experts speaking with Digital, Israel’s targeted strike against Iranian nuclear and military sites presents a crucial chance for the U.S. to pressure Iran into a nuclear agreement that diplomacy alone couldn’t achieve.
The Israeli military informed Digital that the operation in Iran was conducted by Israeli forces in conjunction with the United States. Although U.S. troops weren’t involved in the offensive, they offered defense during the strike and aided in intercepting Iranian missiles aimed at Tel Aviv during Iran’s retaliation on Friday.
“This was an Israeli operation, but we maintained close coordination with the Americans, sharing real-time intelligence and maintaining constant communication,” stated an IDF official.
Avner Golov, Vice President of Mind Israel, remarked to Digital, “We are not trying to involve the U.S. Israel is the ideal example of a responsible ally: taking on the difficult tasks, requesting minimal assistance, and offering strategic value.”
He continued, “Nobody desires war. This achieved results in a matter of days. It was efficient and well-executed. We don’t want to prolong the conflict and certainly don’t want the U.S. to get involved. Israel provides a model for the U.S. to maintain global influence through a partner who delivers results with minimal investment.”
Robert Greenway, Director of the Allison Center for National Security at The Heritage Foundation, noted, “The President has carefully emphasized that these strikes are unilateral Israeli actions, not U.S. attacks, largely to prevent retaliation against American assets. However, an attack on U.S. assets would draw us into the conflict, and Iran is no match for both Israel and the United States.”
“The President has expressed his preference for a diplomatic resolution,” Greenway added. “I believe he was genuine, despite knowing the Iranians well. He anticipated that the prospects might be slim, but he believed it was worth pursuing.”
Israeli analyst and Yediot Ahronot journalist Nadav Eyal told Digital that the operation demonstrates a calculated “bad cop, good cop” strategy, with Israel exerting military pressure while the U.S. seeks diplomatic advantages.
“The president is essentially stating publicly: you’ve been targeted by the Israelis. Now we’ve reached a favorable agreement, and we’re prepared to sign it…”
Eyal further suggested that some pre-attack media coverage may have been intentionally misleading, serving as part of a broader psychological operation aimed at confusing Iran’s leadership regarding the timing and extent of the strike.
“We possess information suggesting that many publications and stories pointed to a date after Sunday, following negotiations with Oman, and highlighting the U.S.’s role in this cooperation, which further strengthens the alliance between Israel and the U.S. regarding the strike.”
Avner Golov of Mind Israel told Digital that the strike represented the culmination of a larger Israeli effort to neutralize three fronts: Hamas in Gaza, Iran’s proxy network across the region, and now the Iranian nuclear program.
“Since October 7, we’ve been engaged in two major campaigns: one against the Palestinian front in Gaza, and another against Iran, which has invested heavily in regional proxies, partnerships, and a missile and UAV program. Over the past year and a half, we’ve targeted both of these arenas and achieved superiority. Now, we’ve launched an operation against the third strategic asset.”
Golov argued that this is the moment for the U.S. to intervene and convey a message that escalation will result in American consequences, not just Israeli ones.
“Ultimately, we want the U.S. to tell Iran: ‘Israel targeted your nuclear and military assets, avoided civilian infrastructure, and didn’t harm the regime. If you now escalate, remember that we’re involved now, and the situation has changed entirely.’”
He stressed that the military success must now be solidified by a political development, ideally one that compels Iran to return to the negotiating table. “The nuclear issue cannot be resolved by a single military action, but this creates a strong foundation for a political one. Coordination with the U.S. is vital.”
Greenway told Digital, “Having launched the strike, as the President suggested, it may open the door for further negotiation. The circumstances have clearly changed. Iran has less capacity than it did yesterday, and it will have even less tomorrow.”
“With each passing day and each successful strike, Iran’s ability to resist diminishes. I believe there’s a good chance they will eventually choose to negotiate.”
The strike also revealed U.S. involvement on the defensive side. When Iran launched missiles toward Israeli cities, U.S. forces assisted in intercepting them, a move officials say demonstrated American commitment without causing escalation.
“As a practical matter, this presents our best collective chance to inflict as much damage as possible on Iran’s nuclear program and its offensive retaliatory capabilities,” Greenway stated. “From a purely military perspective, this is a window of opportunity.”
Trump withdrew from the original Iran nuclear deal during his first term, citing its failure to prevent Tehran’s long-term nuclear weapons ambitions. While he has maintained that Iran will never be allowed to acquire a bomb, recent reports indicate that he might support a revised deal that permits uranium enrichment for civilian purposes.
Golov stated that the numbers now favor the U.S. if it acts quickly. “We’ve optimized our numbers and are impacting theirs. The Iranians will eventually have to accept the American proposal, and that proposal should be presented now.”
“`