Morning! This morning’s lead story by Julian E. Barnes, David E. Sanger, Maggie Haberman and Ronen Bergman focuses on tensions between the U.S. and Israel over Iran nuclear negotiations.

The revived efforts by the Trump administration to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran have sharply exposed the underlying tensions between the United States and Israel. Led by President Donald Trump, the U.S. is seeking to curtail Iran’s nuclear capacity through diplomacy, while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains skeptical of any negotiated settlement, preferring a direct military approach to eliminate what he views as an existential threat to Israel.

As he tends to see…most things? Like, if I were playing Monopoly with Netanyahu my guess is he’d be nervous if I were buying up the brown properties. Let alone the pinks or the yellows. And don’t get me started on the greens or the dark blues. He’d be turning the board over.

At the heart of the discord lies a key question: How to best exploit Iran's current vulnerability. While Netanyahu sees this as an opportunity for a preemptive strike to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, Trump believes the time is ripe for a deal, using diplomacy reinforced with the threat of military action if negotiations fail. As Trump stated, there may be “something good” emerging from these talks, although he acknowledged that the details remain unsettled.

Iran has faced severe setbacks over recent months, including the destruction of elements of its air defense system by Israel and increased sanctions from the U.S.

Netanyahu has leveraged these developments to argue that Iran’s “vulnerability will not last long” and that inaction might allow Tehran to regain its strength and advance its nuclear ambitions. “The only ‘good deal,’” Netanyahu insisted, “would be one that dismantled all of the infrastructure of Iran’s vast nuclear facilities.”

On the other hand, Trump and his advisors believe that Iran’s weakened position creates an opening for diplomacy and negotiations that could lead to a long-term solution. Trump has reportedly conveyed to Netanyahu that any Israeli military action during the ongoing talks would be “inappropriate” and could derail progress. Furthermore, despite their tactical differences, both leaders agree that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable.

I must say it’s nice to see Donald Trump being the voice of reason in international diplomacy. We are talking about the same guy here, right?

Israeli officials, however, remain unconvinced by the Trump administration’s approach, fearing that the president, in his eagerness to secure a legacy-defining deal, might allow Iran to retain the capacity to enrich uranium at some levels. The crux of the current U.S.-Iran negotiations revolves around the Trump administration's demand for a complete halt to all uranium enrichment in Iran. Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s lead negotiator, rebuffed this idea, asserting that insisting on “‘zero enrichment’ in Iran” leaves “nothing left for us to discuss on the nuclear issue.”

These differences have led to tense exchanges between Israeli and U.S. officials. In recent weeks, strategic affairs minister Ron Dermer and Mossad head David Barnea have met with Trump’s negotiator, Steve Witkoff, in both Rome and Washington to voice Israel’s concerns. Israeli frustration grew after Witkoff showed openness to a compromise involving an interim deal on “common principles,” which Netanyahu views as indicative of American weakness. Previous deals, such as the 2015 Obama-era agreement, left a deep mistrust in Israel, especially as Iran has since resumed uranium enrichment at levels close to bomb-grade purity.

The potential for conflict looms large, as Israeli officials publicly and privately signal that they may act unilaterally against Iran’s nuclear facilities if their “red lines” are crossed. According to recent intelligence, Israel has prepared its military to launch strikes on Iranian sites within hours, a move that could escalate into a broad regional conflict. “We are not bluffing,” Israeli officials have reiterated, underscoring their intent with visible military preparations.

Trump, in response, has sought to prevent Israeli action, emphasizing the promise of his diplomatic approach. “I told [Netanyahu] this would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution,” said Trump during a press briefing. While Netanyahu has condemned such public disclosures as “fake news,” the underlying tension marks a clear divide between the two allies.

The back-and-forth over Iran mirrors Netanyahu’s long-standing skepticism of diplomacy, which was evident when he vocally opposed the 2015 nuclear deal, even addressing a joint session of Congress to rally against it. That agreement, which Trump has called “a disaster,” allowed Iran to maintain some enrichment capacity and eventually expired in 2030. Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal in 2018, reimposed sanctions, and adopted a more combative stance against Iran.

However, this approach failed to stop Iran from revamping and expanding its nuclear capabilities. American intelligence estimates suggest that Iran’s stockpile of 60% enriched uranium could reach weapons-grade (90%) within weeks, enabling it to develop a nuclear weapon in a matter of months. Against this backdrop, Netanyahu and his advisors appear more determined than ever to ensure that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are thwarted, by military force if necessary.

As a way to bridge the divide, Trump’s negotiator and Omani mediators have proposed creative options, such as a regional joint venture between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. to produce nuclear fuel for power reactors. However, key hurdles persist, including the question of where the enrichment would occur and whether Israel or Congress’s hawks would accept such measures. While discussing these proposals, Witkoff has reportedly softened his stance on an interim framework, which could reduce tensions in the immediate term while leaving larger issues unresolved.

For Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders, interim agreements are insufficient, as they fear these deals allow Iran to bide its time and strengthen its position. Israeli trust in Trump’s promises has also been deeply eroded. While military officials in the U.S. have expressed skepticism that an Israeli strike without American support would succeed, Israeli leaders insist they cannot rely on diplomacy alone.

With a deal still elusive, time is running out. As one participant in the negotiations observed, “There is still a major gap over the issue of whether Iran will be permitted to continue to enrich uranium.” Without bridging it, the delicate status quo could collapse into confrontation, leaving the Middle East on the brink of another war.

I did rather bury the lede there, I realize. But thanks for letting me read the newspaper so that you don’t have to.

Say, is there a story that might cheer me up a bit?

Sure. The Knicks’ Season could end tonight. Or they could have a big win at Madison Square Garden and salvage their hopes to go and get thrashed by Oklahoma City in the finals next week. Here’s hoping…

Matt Davis lives in Manhattan with his wife and kid.

Standard disclaimer: I read the top story in the New York Times every morning so that you don’t have to. If you were forwarded this, you can subscribe here. I’m also doing a five-minute video version of this, each weekday morning at around 9 a.m. (depending on how long it takes me to read the newspaper). If you’d like to follow me on LinkedIn (you can always watch the recording later). If you subscribe to my Youtube channel it’ll also send you a notification when I’m “going live.”