Israel’s Demands for Iran Peace Deal: Zero Enrichment, Missile Restrictions and Rigorous Verification

As U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations progress under President Donald Trump’s administration, Israeli officials are increasingly vocal about what they consider non-negotiable elements of any potential deal with Tehran.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized Wednesday that Israel and the United States remain in “full coordination” throughout the negotiation process. “We share common objectives, and the most important objective is the removal of the enriched material from Iran, all the enriched material, and the dismantling of Iran’s enrichment capabilities,” Netanyahu stated during a security cabinet meeting.

President Trump expressed optimism about the negotiations, telling reporters at the White House, “We’ve had very good talks over the last 24 hours, and it’s very possible that we’ll make a deal.” However, he cautioned that if talks fail, “we’ll have to go a big step further.”

For Israel, the stakes extend beyond simply ending hostilities. Israeli officials fear a weak agreement could allow Iran to preserve strategic capabilities, regain economic footing, and eventually rebuild its network of armed proxies that have threatened Israeli security. Jerusalem is particularly concerned with maintaining military leverage and freedom of action should Iran violate future commitments.

Israeli security experts have outlined four core areas they consider critical in any deal: dismantling Iran’s uranium enrichment infrastructure, restricting its ballistic missile program, preventing Tehran from rebuilding Hezbollah and Hamas, and ensuring the Iranian regime gains neither political legitimacy nor strategic relief from negotiations.

On the nuclear issue, former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror expressed an uncompromising position: “Weaponized uranium must leave Iran. The Iranians must not be allowed to enrich uranium.”

Israeli journalist Nadav Eyal noted that Jerusalem seeks a much stricter framework than previous agreements, wanting “Iran to stop enrichment for as long as possible and for the enriched material to leave Iran.” He added that Israel is advocating for “an arms control agreement that would be extensive and robust.”

Avner Golov, vice president of the Mind Israel think tank, emphasized the importance of permanently dismantling underground nuclear infrastructure. “In the nuclear arena, what matters is the removal of the enriched material, the destruction of the underground facilities, including those still being built, and a prohibition on new sites,” he said. Golov specifically warned against “sunset clauses” that would allow restrictions to expire after several years.

Jonathan Ruhe of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) argued that the United States and Israel should have “strongly similar redlines,” including “shutting down Iran’s nuclear weapons program completely, permanently and verifiably.” This would include shuttering remaining enrichment facilities at sites like Pickaxe and Isfahan.

Israeli analysts have increasingly placed Iran’s ballistic missile program on equal footing with the nuclear threat. “One of the key questions is whether there will be any sort of limitation on the ballistic missile program of the Iranians,” Eyal noted. “Israel sees this as no less of an existential threat than the nuclear issue.”

Amidror warned that without proper restrictions on missile development, the threat could eventually extend beyond Israel and Europe to reach the United States within 5-10 years.

Golov cautioned that a nuclear-only agreement would allow Iran to rebuild a missile shield protecting future nuclear breakout capabilities. “A deal that focuses only on the nuclear program would allow the Iranians to produce thousands of missiles and create a protective shield around their nuclear program.”

Another significant Israeli concern is preventing sanctions relief or renewed trade from funding Iran’s regional proxies. “Israel is demanding that the Islamic Republic isolate itself from involvement with Lebanon and Gaza and stop supporting armed groups that operate against Israel,” Eyal explained.

Amidror noted that Iran’s ability to support groups like Hezbollah and Hamas has already been weakened by the collapse of regional supply routes. “The Iranians cannot effectively support the proxies because there is no longer a land bridge from Iran to Syria,” he said. However, he cautioned that if negotiations create the impression that Washington backed down, Iran’s regional influence could paradoxically emerge stronger even after recent military setbacks.

Israeli officials are also focused on avoiding any agreement that restores legitimacy to the Iranian regime without fundamentally weakening it. Ruhe warned that for Israel, a “bad deal” would be any agreement that constrains Israel’s future freedom of action against Iran and its proxies.

“This is one big reason Iran wants to ensnare the Trump administration in open-ended negotiations that sideline military options and create daylight between Washington and Jerusalem,” Ruhe concluded.