According to reports, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, traveled to the United States on Tuesday and is set to meet with President Donald Trump today to discuss negotiations between Iran and the U.S. Israeli media has indicated that he aims to convey two key messages to Trump. Firstly, Netanyahu wants to ensure that negotiations extend beyond just nuclear issues to encompass Iran’s ballistic missiles, Tehran’s proxy forces in the region, missile range, recognition of Israel, and regime change. Secondly, he asserts that Israel is prepared to engage in military action against Iran regarding its ballistic missile program.Observers note that this visit to Washington, his second in February 2026 following a trip on January 3, comes at a time when both Iranian and American parties are gearing up for the next round of talks. Concerns arise that actions against Iran may be discussed, potentially leading to attacks or incidents within Iran. Analysts believe Netanyahu possesses the capability to influence Trump’s perspective on a potential conflict with Iran, steering discussions in his favor.Seyyed Hadi Barahani, a professor of Israeli studies at Tehran University, remarked that if Iran accepts the Arab Peace Initiative, it would set negotiations on the right path. Iran must shift its position and endorse the creation of a Palestinian state, thereby eliminating Israel’s justification for military action against Iran. This initiative is widely accepted globally, except by Iran and Israel.The planned trip of the Israeli Prime Minister to the U.S. was initially scheduled for late February but was expedited as both Iranian and American sides prepare for their next negotiations. The urgency of Netanyahu’s visit reflects Israel’s anxiety regarding the progress of these talks. Recent statements from Donald Trump suggesting that a nuclear agreement could be reached without addressing other issues starkly contrast Israel’s position.Israel insists that any negotiations must address not only the nuclear issue but also ballistic missiles and Iran’s support for armed organizations in the region. Israel demands the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program and the removal of enriched materials from Iran. The primary goal of Netanyahu’s visit appears to be to hinder the progress of negotiations between Iran and the U.S., undermining the framework established for any potential agreement.Is Israel likely to succeed in its objective of derailing negotiations? Unfortunately, Israel is well-equipped. It has stolen a significant amount of classified nuclear documents from Iran and possesses concerning intelligence capabilities regarding Iranian activities. These advantages allow Israel to fabricate evidence to support its claims. Furthermore, Iran’s unilateral and isolated stance regarding Israel enables Israel to obstruct and dismantle any engagement with the West.The history of negotiations between Iran and the West shows that Israel excels at sabotage. It has consistently prevented rapprochement between the West and Iran, thwarting initiatives aimed at resolving disputes. A prime example of this is Israel’s successful campaign against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which resulted in the U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. Israel is considered the principal factor behind the failure of efforts over the past few decades to resolve conflicts between Iran and the West.Netanyahu, a seasoned politician, possesses technical skills and capabilities that often surpass those of his Western counterparts, including Trump. His ability to influence Western leaders and manipulate public opinion is significant. Additionally, the Israeli lobby in the U.S. serves as a substantial asset for Israel, mobilizing resources to undermine negotiations. Israel’s claims that its existence is threatened by Iran, which allegedly seeks its destruction, bolster its narrative.Israel portrays this threat as a potential second Holocaust for the Jewish people, justifying military actions to defend itself and preserve the safety of Jews worldwide. It argues that Iran’s access to financial resources equates to the production of missiles and nuclear bombs aimed at destroying Israel. Through this reasoning, Israel expects Western countries, particularly the U.S., to prevent any advancements in Iran’s so-called ‘anti-Jewish’ and ‘anti-Israeli’ programs.European countries, which have historically cooperated with Holocaust narratives, remain vulnerable and passive against these loud Zionist claims, often avoiding opposition even when their interests align with rapprochement with Iran. This reality poses a significant threat to any potential agreement between Iran and Western nations.What chance does Iran have to counter Israel’s policies and salvage nuclear negotiations from sabotage? For years, Iran has recognized the potential for Israel to exploit its unilateral positions regarding the Palestinian issue and has proposed a peaceful solution that aligns with international norms. This solution involves holding a referendum that includes all Palestinian people, regardless of religion.This proposal was intended to distance Iran from accusations and demonstrate its willingness for peaceful resolutions regarding the Palestinian issue. However, alongside this stance, Iran’s previous positions regarding the destruction of Israel and support for armed struggle against it have not ceased. Following Israel’s twelve-day attack, official statements about destroying Israel appear to have diminished, but this is insufficient to halt Israel’s propaganda machine.Israel continues to argue that ignoring Iran’s long-range missiles, which pose a significant threat to its security, is dangerous. Additionally, the armed activities of Iran-supported organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah remain perilous for Israel. With this justification, Israel insists that without the elimination of Iran’s long-range missiles and the cessation of its support for armed struggle, its security and existence remain at risk, placing pressure on Western parties.In this context, what can Iran do? Should it abandon its Palestinian policy and recognize Israel? Reiterating the proposal for a referendum or maintaining silence regarding the destruction of Israel will not alter the current environment that Israel exploits. A fundamental reform and significant change are necessary.Official Iranian support for the Arab Peace Initiative may represent the best and most effective option for achieving this goal. Such a move, welcomed by regional and global countries, has the potential to shift the dynamics and minimize Israel’s opportunities to sabotage Iran’s interactions with the West.This change will likely be embraced by Arab, Islamic, and Western countries, who are willing to engage positively with this transformation. More importantly, Israel would lose its previous leverage to pressure Western nations and manipulate public opinion by reiterating the ‘story of Iran’s efforts to destroy Israel.’Does accepting the Arab Peace Initiative equate to a retreat from Iran’s previous positions? Does this plan restore all Palestinian rights? Is this plan just? The Arab Peace Initiative, based on the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia’s proposal, involves the establishment of a Palestinian state within parts of historic Palestine (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Under this plan, not all of Palestine is returned to the Palestinians, nor does it guarantee the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes or equitable treatment.From an ethical standpoint, all of Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, and Zionism has no right to any part of it. Zionists are immigrants from other countries who have forcibly occupied Palestinian homes. Moreover, Zionism has historically posed the greatest threat to the region and the Islamic world. As long as Zionism retains power in the region, there will be no peace.Thus, the eradication of Zionism and Israel is an ideal goal for Palestine and the entire region. It can be inferred that most Arab and Islamic governments wish for the eradication of Israel and Zionism. However, the crucial question remains: how can this be achieved? Can the referendum solution practically end Israel’s occupation? Can an overt and official call for Israel’s destruction bring about its downfall? Is armed struggle against Israel a viable path, given Israel’s military superiority and historical victories?In this context, supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip may provide a more effective means of resisting Israel and even leading to its demise. How is this feasible? How can supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state on 20% of historic Palestine pressure Israel and potentially lead to its destruction?The establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is recognized by the world and the United Nations, granting it significant weight and credibility. In contrast, only Iran supports the referendum solution, with no other country taking such a stance. For Israel, evading the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank would be a challenging and costly endeavor.Moreover, the West Bank holds such strategic significance for Israel that it would never voluntarily relinquish it to an independent Palestinian state. The West Bank is a highland region overlooking Israel’s low-lying areas. Without the West Bank, Israel’s width shrinks to just 15 kilometers, rendering its map extremely fragile. The most sacred and vital Jewish sites, such as Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, and the Tomb of Abraham, are located in the West Bank.In this shift, both Iran and Palestine, along with Arab and Western countries, stand to gain, while Israel emerges as the sole loser. This transformation would strip Israel of its justification for sabotage, fostering hope that negotiations between Iran and the West could progress more transparently and remain safeguarded from Israeli interference. Although Iran’s change in stance may appear as a retreat, it tactically increases pressure on Israel, raising the costs of its opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state and disarming its attempts to undermine agreements between Iran and Western nations.Due to the West Bank’s importance in Israel’s geopolitical map, two serious possibilities exist: Israel may never withdraw from this territory, or if it does, it would face significant vulnerability and decline. Additionally, the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes would alter Israel’s demographic balance in favor of Arabs, making the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state virtually impossible.Will Iran’s retreat from its stance on the destruction of Israel and support for the Arab Peace Initiative not shift the regional dynamics in favor of Israel? Israel will attempt to exploit such developments for its benefit, framing them as Iran’s retreat from its previous positions. However, the manner in which Iran changes its stance is crucial. Iran can coordinate this shift through engagement with Arab countries, adjusting its positions on Palestine in parallel with Arab nations.For instance, without establishing a complete Palestinian state and ensuring the return of all Palestinian refugees (not just in the West Bank), Arab nations could withhold recognition of Israel. Following the events of October 7 and Israel’s aggressive actions in the region, Arab countries may be more inclined to strengthen their positions against Israel, and Iran’s acceptance of the Arab Peace Initiative could provide a solid justification for these changes. Through dialogue and diplomacy with Arab nations, Iran can reach a suitable agreement, shifting its current position (which Israel exploits) and aligning itself with Arab and Islamic countries.It is noteworthy that all Islamic countries worldwide, except Iran, support the Arab Peace Initiative. Iran and Israel are the only nations that reject this peace plan. This shift would facilitate Iran’s involvement in Palestinian politics in the region and the Islamic world, enhancing the weight of Islamic countries against Israel and fostering synergy between Iran and Islamic nations. Currently, Iran’s anti-Israel stance and that of Arab countries are operating in separate trajectories, with minimal synergy occurring. Thus, this change in position benefits both Iran and Palestine, with all parties except Israel emerging as winners. This transformation will remove Israel’s justification for sabotage, fostering optimism that negotiations between Iran and the West can proceed more clearly and remain insulated from Israeli disruption.In essence while Iran’s shift in position may superficially appear as a retreat it effectively amplifies pressure on Israel heightening the costs of its opposition to the establishment of a Palestinian state and disarming its efforts to undermine agreements between Iran and Western nations.
