Israel’s ceasefire with Hamas is a bad deal. Jerusalem has agreed to an uneven exchange, freeing thousands of convicted terrorists in return for fewer than a hundred hostages. Some of the released prisoners will revert to violence. Yet a silver lining may outweigh immediate dangers. If the incoming Trump administration remains committed to halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may conclude that acquiescing to team Trump on Gaza might shift focus from Gaza to Tehran.
With its proxies in retreat, Tehran is isolated, its path to the Mediterranean blocked. Israeli strategists argue that resolution with Hamas, even if unfavorable on its face, allows Jerusalem to redirect military resources toward countering the Iranian nuclear program. Military planners point to secret sites like Fordow that require specialized ordnance to destroy. Only the United States can provide these munitions. Netanyahu has placed his trust in the incoming White House team, which has said repeatedly that it would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
Secretary of State-designee Marco Rubio has defended Israel’s security requirements and called Iran the world’s leading state sponsor of terror. Pete Hegseth, who if confirmed will head the Defense Department, has said Israel should receive support to crush hostile forces and insists that Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies have no rightful place in any government. Incoming National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has argued that the United States must seize the moment caused by the Hezbollah and Syria.
Many Israelis recall past deals in which freed terrorists perpetrated new attacks.
Netanyahu’s critics see the hostage swap as capitulation. Many Israelis recall past deals in which freed terrorists perpetrated new attacks. Proponents of the ceasefire accept these risks but claim that ending the war spares Israel from becoming mired in a multi-front conflict. They argue that Hamas’s infrastructure is ravaged, and this pause not only frees hostages, but also enables Jerusalem to address its strategic priority: preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.
While Tehran denies intending to build warheads, it enriches uranium to levels and in quantities that have few other purposes beyond weaponization. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran has enough material to make multiple bombs. The Trump administration’s appointees speak openly of stopping Iran’s program, whether diplomatically or, if necessary, by force. They also assert that a weakened Iranian regime can topple if placed under significant economic and political strain.
The potential repercussions from the swift release of hostages may be painful for Israel. Still, Netanyahu believes any damage will be overshadowed if the Iranian regime is denied a nuclear bomb and the region is freed from Tehran’s grip. If the United States shares technology, intelligence, and diplomatic backing for a strike on underground Iranian sites, the price of acquiescing to President-elect Donald Trump’s push for a ceasefire may be worth it.
The collapse of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Damascus showed how quickly a long-standing authoritarian state can implode if it loses foreign sponsors and domestic legitimacy. The same could be true for Iran. This effort carries risks. An open conflict with Iran could draw in multiple actors and bring retaliatory strikes on American or Israeli targets. Yet if Washington and Jerusalem do not act, Tehran soon may cross the nuclear threshold and reassert its influence in the region. The Israeli government believes that removing the distraction in Gaza could be necessary to address the more dangerous threat lurking to the east.
If Tehran’s nuclear drive can be halted and its rulers deposed, the prisoner exchange with Hamas might be remembered as a short-term sacrifice that opened the door to lasting regional change.
