Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu held a more-than-three-hour meeting in Jerusalem with President Biden's special envoy, Witkoff, pressing Washington to give Israel broad "freedom to act" on Iran and warning that Tehran's assurances are not to be trusted. Israeli leaders presented a short list of concrete demands: halt production of ballistic missiles that could threaten Israel and stop uranium enrichment activities that bring Iran closer to a nuclear weapons capability. The conversation underscored an Israeli judgment that diplomatic guarantees from Tehran are unreliable and that operational latitude — including kinetic options — is essential to Israeli security.
Witkoff's visit was not limited to the prime minister's office. He also met Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Herzi Zamir, Mossad director David Barnea, and other senior security officials, signalling that Washington was engaging both political and military interlocutors. Israeli media reported that Witkoff was expected to meet Iran's foreign minister, Alaghezi, on February 6 as part of a parallel U.S. effort to lower tensions with Tehran, placing the envoy in a delicate shuttle role between two adversaries.
The talks ranged beyond Iran. Netanyahu and Witkoff discussed the second phase of a ceasefire and the conditions for reconstruction in Gaza. The Israeli government made clear that rebuilding the Strip will be conditional on the disarmament of Hamas, full demilitarization of Gaza, and the fulfilment of Israel's declared war aims. Netanyahu reiterated that the Palestinian Authority will have no role in governing Gaza, a position that complicates international plans for post-conflict administration and reconstruction.
The Israeli demand for operational freedom on Iran comes at a moment when Washington appears to be pursuing diplomacy to de-escalate direct U.S.-Iran tensions. Granting Israel the unencumbered ability to strike or otherwise act against Iranian assets would complicate U.S. efforts to stabilise the broader region and could undercut nascent channels of communication with Tehran. Conversely, refusing Israeli requests risks alienating a core U.S. ally and raising questions about Washington's willingness to underwrite Israel's security by other means.
Strategically, Israel's approach is maximalist: it seeks both a return to a strict technical ceiling on Iranian capabilities and an ironclad guarantee that it may act unilaterally if it judges the threat unacceptable. That posture increases the chance of miscalculation. Any Israeli operations against Iran, overt or covert, would reverberate across the Middle East, elevating the risk of retaliation from Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah and escalating pressure on global energy markets and shipping routes.
In the near term, the outcome to watch is twofold: whether Witkoff's shuttle diplomacy produces any concessions from Tehran and how Washington responds to Israel's demand for operational freedom. If the U.S. seeks to balance deterrence with restraint, it will need to craft calibrated assurances to Israel — including intelligence sharing and contingency coordination — without triggering a wider conflict that could overwhelm diplomatic channels with Iran and deepen regional instability.