Follow us on social

51930709369_c20506d40b_o

Senior Israeli military official: Iran deal exit was a mistake

Behind closed doors, the head of the Defense Ministry's political-military bureau said what many in Israel’s security establishment believe.

Reporting | Middle East

A current senior Israeli military official reportedly said last week during a meeting with U.S. State and Defense Department officials that it was a mistake for President Trump to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement. 

According to Axios, retired Brig. Gen. Dror Shalom — who is head of the political-military bureau in the Israeli Ministry of Defense and previously led the country’s military intelligence research and analysis division — “stressed” in the private meeting that “the withdrawal from the Iran deal was a mistake that brought Iran closer to a nuclear weapon and created a worse situation.” 

Shalom’s comments contradict the official Israeli government position but they also line up with a slew of senior Israeli security establishment figures who have said recently that either pulling out of the JCPOA was a mistake or the United States should negotiate re-entry. 

Added to that list this week was former Military Intelligence Director Maj. Gen. (Res.) Tamir Hayman, who told right-wing newspaper Israel Hayom that the United States rejoining the deal would serve Israeli interests. 

“[T]he situation that would have happened once the nuclear deal elapsed [in 2030] wouldn't have been as bad as the current situation, as Iran has stockpiled so much enriched material and its abilities have advanced beyond what the deal had allowed it to pursue,” he said, adding that, "Therefore, my conclusion is that in the reality of here and now, reaching a deal is the right thing,"

Hayman also said that a renewed JCPOA “would diminish the offset the amount of enriched uranium Iran has; it would set it back and it would buy [us] a very long time because enrichment takes a long time."

Negotiations to return to the deal between the United States, Europe, China, Russia, and Iran have entered the final stages, with the U.S. designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist group — which Trump did to make it politically more difficult for any future administration to return to the JCPOA — reportedly being one of the last sticking points. 

Just this week, Sen. Rand Paul — who has recently started voicing support for reentry to the deal — told a senior Biden administration official that it should seriously consider delisting the IRGC. 

“I think we have to be open to it,” Paul said


Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meets with Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid in Riga, Latvia, on March 7, 2022. [State Department photo by Ron Przysucha]
Reporting | Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.