Washington treads carefully as Israel signals willingness to act alone—regardless of Trump’s diplomacy or Iranian denials. This comes as unconfirmed reports emerge from Hamas about a ceasefire deal reached with the United States — but not Israel.

Amid intensified diplomatic activity and rising nuclear tensions, U.S. officials are reportedly increasingly concerned that Israel may launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities with little or no warning. According to a New York Times report, American intelligence assesses that Israel could initiate such an operation within seven hours—far too quickly for Washington to dissuade Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or respond with coordinated military support.

While the Biden administration had long favored restraint and strategic alignment on Iran, the current Trump administration appears to be juggling contradictory pressures: seeking a “creative” diplomatic framework with Iran on one hand, and preparing for a potential military eruption between its key Middle Eastern ally and the Islamic Republic on the other.

American concerns were amplified after Netanyahu reportedly instructed Israel’s security establishment to continue preparations for a strike on Iran—even after standing alongside President Trump during the surprise April 7 announcement that U.S.-Iran nuclear talks were resuming.

“Fake news,” was the only comment Netanyahu’s office offered in response to the Times report. But Israeli officials have made no secret of their skepticism toward any deal that allows Iran to retain its enrichment infrastructure. As one senior Israeli figure told Channel 12 News, “Tehran cannot be trusted, and any agreement that delays the problem merely enables Iran to move closer to breakout capacity under diplomatic cover.”

Despite Iran’s repeated denials that it seeks to produce nuclear weapons, its continued enrichment to near-weapons-grade levels, its obstruction of IAEA inspectors, and expansion of its missile program tell a different story. In Jerusalem, these are red flags, not ambiguities.

Trump’s team, led by envoy Steve Witkoff and working closely with Oman as mediator, has reportedly begun exploring a face-saving interim declaration of principles aimed at cooling the situation and stalling Israeli action. One concept under discussion is a joint nuclear fuel venture involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states—ostensibly shifting enrichment to a neutral site. It remains unclear whether Tehran would agree to such terms or whether Israel would view this as a legitimate safeguard.

Witkoff, who had previously opposed interim deals, has reportedly softened his stance, believing that a symbolic accord might be enough to forestall Israeli military action and provide Trump with a diplomatic win ahead of campaign season. Trump himself hinted Sunday that “something good” might emerge from the talks “in the next two days.”

Still, from Israel’s perspective, even an interim agreement that leaves Iran’s advanced centrifuges intact for months or years is dangerous. Officials in both Israel and the U.S. who spoke to the Times said Netanyahu is insisting that any acceptable deal must include the removal of Iran’s existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium—either by shipping it abroad or by reducing its concentration to lower levels.

Washington’s unease deepened after last Friday’s closed-door meeting in Rome between Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, Mossad Chief David Barnea, and Witkoff. That same delegation then flew to Washington for consultations with CIA Director John Ratcliffe, raising speculation that a potential Israeli operation may be imminent or already in motion.

U.S. and Israeli officials also confirmed a follow-up meeting between Dermer and Witkoff on Tuesday in Washington. Though some Israeli media linked it to ongoing hostage deal efforts involving Hamas, the shadow of Iran hovered over the discussions.

Notably, following the Netanyahu-Trump Oval Office meeting last month, Israeli officials were instructed to continue detailed planning for potential strike scenarios ranging from targeted raids to sustained bombardment campaigns—some of which involve Iranian nuclear facilities embedded deep within civilian areas. The strategic calculus? If Israel believes that Iranian enrichment has crossed a red line, it may no longer wait for U.S. assent.

When Trump phoned Netanyahu to press for delay, the Israeli premier reportedly made no effort to conceal his directives. He argued instead that the window to halt Iran’s progress was narrowing. According to U.S. sources, Trump pushed back, believing that Iran’s current economic and diplomatic fragility gives Washington the upper hand at the negotiating table.

But many in Israel’s defense establishment see it differently. “Delays, declarations, and diplomacy have brought us to the brink,” one Israeli defense source was quoted as saying. “At some point, words are not enough.”

While Trump insists he wants a peaceful resolution—saying again last weekend he would “love” to resolve the nuclear issue with “no bombs dropped”—Israel may no longer consider such assurances sufficient.