Netanyahu Visit Underscores Lasting Calm Is Illusory, Fragile

Netanyahu Returns to White House. What of the Future Policy Towards Iran?
A Cease-Fire with a Complex Geopolitical Landscape as Its Backdrop.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attended a dinner last evening at the White House with U.S. President Donald Trump, the essential focus of their discussions was the continuing war against Hamas and the urgent question of securing a viable cease-fire in Gaza.

While Iran’s nuclear program was not the primary agenda item — and was only discussed secondarily — it remained the strategic backdrop that both leaders understand would shape all other decisions.

Israeli officials can be assured of total cooperation from the United States in the event of any renewed Iranian nuclear breakout, Israel will be far more prepared to accept a cease-fire with Hamas, even if not all Israeli conditions are fully met.

Immediately following the Iranian cease-fire putting an end to the 12 day war, the Iranian parliament swiftly announced its withdrawal from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) framework, effectively halting inspections and global controls on its nuclear development.

On June 25, 2025, lawmakers passed a bill suspending all cooperation with the IAEA.

This was reinforced by Deputy Speaker Hamidreza Haji Babaei’s declaration on June 28 that IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi would be barred from future visits and that surveillance cameras would be removed from all nuclear sites.

Iranian leaders have continued to issue defiant statements.

Just days ago, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reiterated that Iran "will not surrender under any circumstances," accusing the United States and Israel of engaging in economic warfare and sabotage.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi publicly rejected any suggestion that Tehran was preparing to resume nuclear negotiations, describing recent proposals as "humiliating."

For Israel, the cease-fire is no guarantee of lasting calm.

The Netanyahu government remains committed to preemptive action if intelligence indicates renewed enrichment or weapons development.

Israeli security services have continued contingency planning, including potential drone strikes against Iranian operatives in Syria and Iraq, to limit Iran’s regional influence.

This policy was underscored today as Netanyahu met President Trump in Washington, D.C., where both leaders publicly reaffirmed their determination to deny Iran any path to a nuclear weapon.

According to senior aides, Netanyahu pressed Trump to maintain a hardline position: no enrichment, no partial deals, and no lifting of sanctions without the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The meeting also focused on coordinating responses should Iran accelerate enrichment or if the cease-fire collapses.

In Washington, debates over how to respond to Iran’s defiance have intensified.

President Trump, who has characterized the recent strikes as a decisive success, has not ruled out further military action if Tehran resumes uranium enrichment.

Meanwhile, administration officials have completed a draft "term sheet" offering Iran between $20 - $30 billion in economic incentives and access to $6 billion in frozen assets — contingent on a permanent enrichment ban and unrestricted IAEA inspections.

Asked this week whether he still supported the proposal, Trump said, "If Iran wants to be part of the world economy, the door is open. But if they think they can play games, they’ll get hit harder than before."

Within the U.S. intelligence community, Iran’s withdrawal from the IAEA is viewed as a significant escalation.

Analysts continue to explore covert options to disrupt the Iranian program, while cautioning that the current calm may only be a tactical pause before renewed hostilities.

Congress remains divided.

On June 27, the Republican-led U.S. Senate rejected a Democratic effort to constrain Trump’s military authority in the region, voting 53 - 47 against a war powers resolution. A Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.Res.106) has been introduced to authorize force if Iran produces weapons-grade uranium.

Democrats have countered with calls for renewed diplomacy, but these proposals have yet to gain traction given Iran’s current posture.

Today’s White House meeting underscored the alignment between Washington and Jerusalem that Iran must never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon.

While some warn that any breakdown of the cease-fire could trigger rapid escalation, others argue that only credible threats have held Tehran in check.

These developments raise fundamental questions for both American and Israeli policymakers:

• If Israel again opts for military force to prevent Iran’s nuclear breakout, should the United States lend direct support or maintain a measure of distance.
• Should the American response to any renewed conflict depend on who initiates hostilities?
• Can the U.S. sustain its stated objective that Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon — no matter the cost?

Beyond these considerations lies a larger principle: any United Nations member openly threatening the destruction of another is in clear violation of international law.

This standard, enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibits threats or the use of force against other states. The Charter also allows suspension or expulsion of members that persistently violate these norms.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine reinforces that no state has the right to pursue mass violence or annihilation against another.

As the situation evolves, these profound questions will continue to define the strategic landscape in the Mideast.

The Netanyahu-Trump summit in Washington underscores that any illusion of lasting calm is fragile — and that the coming months may test regional stability as never before.

Mark L. Cohen practices law, and was counsel at White & Case starting in 2001, after serving as international lawyer and senior legal consultant for the French aluminum producer Pechiney. Cohen was a senior consultant at a Ford Foundation Commission, an adviser to the PBS television program "The Advocates," and assistant attorney general in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He teaches U.S. history at the business school in Lille l'EDHEC. Read Mark L. Cohen's Reports — More Here.