Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities within days.
This sobering conclusion emerges from the convergence of alarming intelligence assessments, failed diplomatic efforts, and lessons from this week’s Middle East Forum (MEF) war game simulation. The Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency now warns that Tehran can produce sufficient weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear device in “probably less than one week.” From Jerusalem’s perspective, this shrinking timeline leaves virtually no margin for error.
The fifth round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Rome has crystallized the impossibility of a negotiated solution. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff’s departure mid-meeting on Friday—officially due to his “flight schedule,” while technical teams remained—signals more than scheduling conflicts. The core dispute remains irreconcilable: Tehran insists on its “right” to enrich uranium domestically, while Washington demands zero enrichment capability.
This fundamental impasse validates what we observed during the Middle East Forum’s annual policy conference in Washington, D.C., from May 19-22. Our war game simulation on Thursday, which brought together seasoned policy experts and MEF supporters to examine a Strait of Hormuz crisis, demonstrated how diplomatic failures can cascade into military action within hours. The Iranian team exploited every hesitation, using negotiations to advance their program while mining the Strait and revealing a clandestine nuclear arsenal. Friday’s diplomatic failure in Rome suggests this pattern continues in reality.
The fifth round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks in Rome has crystallized the impossibility of a negotiated solution.
On the eve of these talks, Iran took an extraordinary step that should alarm any serious observer. In a letter to the United Nations Secretary-General and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi threatened to hide enriched uranium at secret locations if “threats made by the Zionist fanatics persist.” Tehran would implement “special measures for the protection of its nuclear facilities and materials”—a thinly veiled threat to move its most sensitive materials beyond international monitoring.
Israeli officials have shifted from quiet preparation to barely concealed readiness. Mossad chief David Barnea and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer flew to Rome alongside Witkoff’s talks, tuned to receive immediate briefings on any progress. Their presence accentuated Jerusalem’s determination to understand every diplomatic nuance while military options remained active.
U.S. intelligence has intercepted Israeli communications signaling potential attack plans and observed tangible military movements: forward deployment of specialized munitions, completion of major Air Force exercises, and strike-readiness indicators. As Defense Minister Israel Katz declared, “Iran is more exposed than ever to strikes on its nuclear facilities. We have the opportunity to achieve our most important goal—to thwart and eliminate the existential threat.”
The operational reality is daunting. Any Israeli strike would require a week-long campaign targeting multiple sites: the Natanz enrichment complex, the deeply buried Fordow facility, Isfahan’s uranium conversion plant, and suspected weaponization sites. Israel has methodically degraded Iran’s deterrent capabilities—Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal reportedly reduced by 80 percent, Syrian proxy networks shattered, Hamas isolated after the Gaza war. As one Israeli security official assessed, “Iran’s regional allies lie in tatters.”
Our war game simulation at the MEF conference revealed truths now playing out in real-time. When evidence of weaponized enrichment triggered action in our exercise, events spiraled from GPS disruptions and cyber-attacks to nuclear detonation within three compressed rounds.
“We have the opportunity to achieve our most important goal—to thwart and eliminate the existential threat.”
China’s simulation role proved particularly instructive. Beijing positioned itself as both Iran’s protector and the Gulf states’ alternative security guarantor, ultimately downing an Israeli aircraft when conflict erupted. This reflects current reality: China continues supplying Iran through sanctions, purchasing discounted oil, and positioning itself to benefit regardless of outcome. Recent U.S. Treasury sanctions revealed Chinese sodium perchlorate shipments to Iran’s missile program through Bandar Abbas—the same port that suffered a mysterious explosion in April.
Russia similarly exploits the crisis for strategic gain. While avoiding direct military involvement, Moscow upgrades Iran’s capabilities and threatens advanced S-400 air defense sales that would substantially complicate Israeli operations. Our simulation’s Russian team seized Arctic territories while others focused on the Gulf—classic strategic opportunism that mirrors Russian President Vladimir Putin’s real-world approach.
President Donald Trump’s position cuts through diplomatic obfuscation: zero enrichment or face consequences. This clarity, combined with implicit Israeli action if negotiations fail, represents sophisticated strategy disguised as simplicity. Yet Tehran’s response has been escalation, not compromise. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared Israel would receive a “devastating and decisive response” to any attack, while Araghchi warned that Washington would be held legally responsible as a “participant” in any Israeli aggression.
The fundamental problem remains structural. Iran views domestic enrichment as non-negotiable sovereignty; Israel and, increasingly, the United States view any Iranian enrichment as an existential threat. Past attempts to paper over this gap—notably, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—merely delayed the reckoning while Iran advanced its program and regional aggression.
Our war game demonstrated that non-kinetic tools—sanctions, cyber operations, intelligence activities—work only when applied early with international support. Once Iran crosses nuclear thresholds, these measures alone prove insufficient. A paradox emerged: When Israel contemplated strikes seriously, Iran shifted from defiance to urgent negotiation. Demonstrating willingness to use force sometimes provides the only impetus for genuine compromise.
Any Israeli prime minister must weigh [the] terrible but temporary cost against the permanent threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Israeli leaders understand the price their nation will pay. Iranian missiles will target Jerusalem, Haifa, and Tel Aviv. Houthis will escalate from Yemen. Revolutionary Guard assets worldwide will activate against Israeli embassies and Jewish communities from Buenos Aires to Bangkok. The domestic front will endure casualties and psychological warfare unseen since 1973. Yet any Israeli prime minister must weigh this terrible but temporary cost against the permanent threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Success requires more than strikes alone. Our simulation demonstrated that facilities rebuild, knowledge survives, and determination strengthens under attack without sustained pressure. Israel must drive the nail through nuclear facilities while America must turn the screws on everything else: complete financial isolation, continuous cyber degradation, comprehensive intelligence penetration, and diplomatic quarantine until Iran abandons enrichment entirely.
Washington’s strategic ambiguity—extending diplomatic hands while deploying B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia and transferring bunker-buster bombs to Israel—serves multiple purposes. It reassures Jerusalem, pressures Tehran, and maintains flexibility. Yet this ambiguity has limits. Israeli officials privately warn that absent breakthrough, they will strike unilaterally.
The multilateral context that enabled past agreements has shattered. Russia partners with Iran against Ukraine. China prioritizes displacing American influence over non-proliferation. Europe lacks leverage. Regional players hedge their bets. This leaves the heavy lifting to Washington and Jerusalem, with Oman’s mediation valuable but ultimately unable to bridge fundamental differences.
As Iranian-American journalist and author Masih Alinejad reminded our conference attendees, Iranians deserve better than a regime building centrifuges while citizens cry for bread. This moral dimension clarifies the stakes. The regime will not voluntarily abandon nuclear ambitions—our war game proved it, history confirms it, and Israeli intelligence validates it.
Every indicator points toward military action within days.
Every indicator points toward military action within days. Witkoff’s Rome departure, intelligence reports of uranium relocation threats, degraded Iranian proxy networks, and Israeli military readiness converge toward one conclusion. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the Times of Israel, “is waiting for the nuclear talks to collapse and for the moment Trump will be disappointed … and open to giving him the go-ahead.”
That moment has effectively arrived. Iran’s breakout timeline severely strains the utility of continued negotiation. Each round buys Tehran time while Jerusalem’s patience evaporates. The phrase circulating in Israeli military circles is chillingly simple: It’s now a matter of days, not weeks.
I wish otherwise. I wish diplomacy alone could secure our interests and Israel’s survival. But wishing accomplishes nothing against a regime that threatens annihilation while pursuing the means to achieve it.
The world very soon may awaken to explosions over Iranian nuclear sites—a pivotal moment that will test Western resolve to prevent nuclear proliferation through sustained pressure combining Israeli military action with comprehensive American-led isolation. The alternative includes Iranian nuclear weapons, regional conflagration, and Chinese and Russian strategic gains at American expense.
Sometimes inaction disguised as prudence proves most dangerous. This week tests that truth. May our leaders internalize these lessons before time expires, and may we possess the resolve to see through what must be done.
