As news reports buzz with the Trump administration’s renewed push to negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program while telling Israel not to strike Iran, Israelis have been asking, “Where are we in all this?” President Donald Trump’s statements about Iran and its nuclear ambitions may be confusing and contradictory, but maybe there’s a method to it.
Publicly, while Trump has urged Israel to refrain from unilaterally striking Iranian facilities, he insists that “everything is still on the table” until a verifiable deal is reached. On the surface, this posture may appear contradictory: encouraging diplomacy while simultaneously warning that force could still be used. But beneath these surface tensions, there appears to lie a more subtle strategic calculus—one that may involve using Israel’s deterrent posture as leverage, effectively making the Jewish state a “stalking horse” to pressure Tehran.
To those of a certain age, Trump’s policy might remind you of Erich Brenn, an entertainer who appeared on “The Ed Sullivan Show.” His act consisted of simultaneously spinning a dozen plates at the end of sticks, accompanied by the tune “Sabre Dance.” Those plates never fell. If that was a delicate balancing act, publicly handcuffing Israel is one, too.
For good reason, Israel has regarded any sign of Iranian nuclear capability as an existential threat. From the early 2000s, her prime ministers—starting with Ariel Sharon—have publicly warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could force a preemptive Israeli strike. Over the years, nuclear scientists working in Iran have been assassinated, viruses have been inserted into Iranian computers, and records and details of Iranian nuclear capabilities have been smuggled into Israel. But so far, no direct military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Despite asking Israel to stand down, Trump has been adamant that “nothing is off the table” regarding U.S. policy toward Iran. This phrase, repeated in interviews and press conferences, is classic Trump rhetoric, designed to keep opponents guessing, preserve maximum leverage, and placate hawkish constituencies in Congress and on Capitol Hill. By simultaneously threatening severe retaliation (short of naming exactly what form it would take) while pursuing hidden or private diplomatic backchannels, the administration maintains a position of ambiguity.
Why this rhetorical tightrope? For one, ambiguity ensures that hardliners in Tehran cannot assume the United States won’t resort to force if negotiations fail. If Iran believes that Washington is soft on military options, the hardliners may push the regime closer to a breakout. Conversely, if America sounds too belligerent without pursuing talks, European allies and regional partners might retreat from supporting U.S.-led sanctions or diplomatic efforts. The “nothing is off the table” formulation thus serves as a pressure valve: It keeps Iran unsettled even as it gives Trump plausible deniability when he claims to prefer a “great deal” over war.
The most intriguing (and concerning) aspect of Trump’s public posture is the extent to which Israel is cast as a “stalking horse” in larger negotiations with Iran. In Cold War parlance, a stalking horse is deployed to draw attention, probe defenses or create bargaining leverage. If Israel is publicly poised to strike, Iran may feel compelled to negotiate more earnestly, worrying that delays could invite an Israeli airstrike or at least covert Israeli sabotage of its nuclear infrastructure.
How do we reconcile Trump’s red line for Israel with his declaration that nothing is off the table? Maybe they are not contradictory. Telling Israel “don’t do it” may help keep Arab Gulf states on board with U.S.-led isolation of Iran. Simultaneously, Trump’s “nothing is off the table” sound bite keeps Iran off-balance. It also placates hawks in Washington who believe that without the possibility of force, Iran would never negotiate seriously.
But what is Israel to think of all these calculations? Remember former President Joe Biden’s “take the win?” It was a warning not to go after Iran after it launched more than 300 drones and missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli airstrike in Syria that killed a senior Iranian general. The majority of the Iranian attack was intercepted by Israeli and allied defenses, with assistance from the United States and other regional partners.
Israel’s leaders and public opinion rely on America’s unbreakable commitment to Israel’s security. If Trump pulls the leash on Jerusalem, it could create a sense of betrayal and lead Israel to take unilateral action, openly or covertly. Israel’s attacks on Iran in April 2024, when it destroyed missile positions near Tehran, caught Washington by surprise. The same could be said when Israel went after Iranian military sites in October.
Trump’s approach toward Iran and his public demand for Israel to hold back on military action reflect a high-wire act between diplomacy and deterrence. By invoking “everything remains on the table,” he preserves U.S. coercive leverage while directing Israel to serve as an auxiliary pressure point. Yet this strategy is fraught with risk: it could alienate a vital ally, embolden Iranian hardliners, or even spark a wider regional conflagration if miscalculated.
Eric Brenn never let a spinning plate fall and get smashed to pieces. Even if one did, it would have been easy to get a replacement up and spinning. Trump’s act is more delicate. If he drops a plate, all hell could break loose.