Last week, 3W analyzed the US – Iran ceasefire announcement, and concluded it probably was a “a ceasefire that wasn’t”. The main reasons for our conclusion were (A) that the US 15-point and Iranian 10-point peace proposals were too far apart for them to reach common ground; (B) Israel’s unwillingness to accept a ceasefire in any form and consequently its deliberate acts to undermine it, for example via its carpet bombing of Lebanon on the day of the ceasefire.
What has happened since?
Firstly, The New York Times published an analysis of how the US got to the decision to go to war with Iran. After pushing for an attack on Iran for months, NYT writes, Israeli prime minister travelled to Washington DC on February 11 to personally brief US president Trump. Notably, NYT says, Netanyahu and Trump went into the White House’s Situation Room, from where US military and intelligence operations can be managed in real time. There, Trump did not sit down at the head of table, as usual. Rather, he sat down at the side of the table, among the “rank and file”, indicating he was not in charge of the meeting. Netanyahu and his team in Israel, most prominently David Barnea, the director of Mossad, Israel’s foreign intelligence agency, then laid why the US and Israel had to attack Iran and how, NYT says. The New York Times includes the names of the Americans in the room: Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff and former campaign advisor to Netanyahu, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff general Dan Caine, CIA director John Ratcliffe. as well as Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. (Over at the Glenn Diessen substack, Max Blumenthal explained the long and close relationship of most of these people with Israel and the Israeli Lobby in the US, and as a result, their “innate” tendency to just go along with Israeli ideas and proposals.)
As to the details of the Israeli plan, an attack would lead to a quick implosion of Iran’s ruling elite, Netanyahu argued. The US – Israel Alliance could kill Iran’s key leaders, after which Israel would organize street protests to enable a coup. During this period, Iran’s ballistic missile stockpile would quickly run out, leaving it little of a threat to the US and Israeli interests in the Middle East region. In addition, Iran would not be able to close the Strait of Hormuz, and Israel could bring in the Kurds to accelerate the regime change envisioned by Tel Aviv. Absent from the meeting were the people whose inclinations are typically less aligned with Israel, most notably vice-president JD Vance and US director of national security Tulsi Gabbard. When in the days following the meeting with Netanyahu US experts on Iran reported back to the US president with their assessment of the Israeli plans, Vance pushed the hardest not to go along with it. The US experts agreed the Israel plan was “farcical” and “bu**shit”, which Vance used to describe a potential war with Iran as “a huge distraction of resources” and “massively expensive.” Vance warned Trump that a war against Iran could cause regional chaos and untold numbers of casualties. It could also break apart Trump’s political coalition and would be seen as a betrayal by many voters who had bought into the promise of no new wars. But in the end, as the world now knows, Trump followed the advice of Netanyahu.
3W notes three things in response to these revelations by NYT. Firstly, the seeds for the current War on Iran were sown months ago already, in particular when Netanyahu travelled to Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida on December 29, 2025. As 3W analyzed already then, Netanyahu convinced Trump to drive towards a new war on Iran by change his demands. Instead of just demanding an end to an Iranian nuclear weapons program, Trump and Netanyahu agreed that the US would henceforth demand that Iran destroys any nuclear capability, including for civilian nuclear purposes; and even more importantly, destroys its ballistic missile capabilities. At the time, 3W noted these demands equaled a demand for complete and unconditional surrender – something no proud nation would agree to.
it provides further evidence for the assertion that Israel is today leading the US, at least when it comes to Middle Eastern policy
Secondly, it provides further evidence for the assertion that Israel is today leading the US, at least when it comes to Middle Eastern policy. Already two decades ago in their book “The Israel Lobby” John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt warned Israel was getting ever more influential. The Gaza Genocide made it very clear Israel could corner US presidents to go along with its plans. But under Trump it has become clear that Israel makes the policy. Former US secretary of state John Kerry in a recent interview said, Anadolu Ajensi writes, that Israeli prime minister Netanyahu had repeatedly urged US administrations to carry out military strikes on Iran, going back to George W. Bush (the junior), making many of the same argument he made in front of Trump. All previous presidents refused to go along with Israel on this subject, but Trump agreed. Two things seem to have led to this state of affairs. One is that while previous administrations would listen to the Israeli’s but in the end prefer to follow the advice of American institutions, Trump has sidelined the American institutions in favor of Israel. Joe Kent confirmed this based on his first-hand experience. Remember also how Trump ignored Tulsi Gabbard when on behalf of the American intelligence community she told him Iran was not working on a nuclear weapon. What has also happened is that Israel has been able to push Americans with more Zionist convictions closer to the centers of power, meaning that often times, the American institutions that provide analysis and advice are saying the same things Israel is saying. Under Biden, for example, there was the Israeli – American, and former IDF soldier, Amos Hochstein. Under Trump, the Israeli – American, and former IDF soldier, Merav Ceren was appointed to the National Security Council to lead the Israel and Iran portfolios, while arch-Zionists Steve Wittkof and Jared Kushner manage US diplomacy.
Thirdly, the NYT report also makes clear that the US – Israel Alliance failed to achieve its objectives in their most recent War on Iran. That is why it used Pakistan to get a ceasefire in place.
As to the ceasefire, US president Trump dispatched his vice-president JD Vance to lead the negotiations with Iran. The Guardian writes this was an odd choice. Firstly, because so far Witkoff and Kushner have managed all US diplomacy. Secondly, because on his first diplomatic assignment of importance, Vance has been tasked to with rescuing the war that he argued against from the very beginning. The Guardian further writes that Vance was been given a “poisoned chalice”. After a month of fighting, the US has few cards to play. It can demand many things, but it lost whatever leverage it had to force its demands upon Iran. In fact, the war left Iran in the dominant position, as 3W also noted earlier. It patiently absorbed the US – Israel Alliance strikes, then caused more painful damage to the US military and economic interests in the region through retaliatory strikes, and established a choke hold over the global economy through its control over the Strait of Hormuz. According to the BBC, in private Trump joked that “If it (a peace deal) doesn’t happen, I’m blaming JD Vance. And if it does happen, I’m taking full credit.” In other words, 3W notes, if Vance were to succeed in getting from Iran what the US – Israel Alliance is seeking from it – surrender – all good and well. And if he failed, one of the few outspoken voices against Israel’s plans for the US in the Middle East would be blamed and sidelined. Again all good and well, from an Israeli perspective!
Vance was been given a “poisoned chalice”. After a month of fighting, the US has few cards to play. It can demand many things, but it lost whatever leverage it had to force its demands upon Iran
Considering the US negotiating position, unsurprisingly Vance failed. Vance flew back to the US early Sunday after 21 hours of talks without any agreement, writes The Wall Street Journal. According to WSJ, which 3W noted earlier very much represents the Zionist perspective, the talks failed because “Iran refused to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons”. That, 3W notes, cannot be factually be correct since Iran has always maintained it is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. More likely, therefore, the US repeated its previous demand that Iran ends even its civilian nuclear program, even though that is deemed a sovereign right under the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and which Iran has so far always refused. The New York Times writes that according to two Iranian officials familiar with the talks, the sticking points were the US demand for immediate and unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the US demand for Iran to hand-over its 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium, and Iran’s demand that about $27 billion in frozen revenues held abroad be released. Iran offered to open the Strait upon reaching a complete deal with the US, and as per its previous offer, Iran is willing to lower the enrichment level of the 900 pounds back to the NPT allowed maximum of 3.5%, under international inspection, but refuses to hand it over to the US.
From the Iranian perspective, the talks could still be seen as a victory, NYRT adds – another one, 3W also adds that Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the head of Iran’s Parliament and an influential military commander, led the Iranian delegation and met face-to-face with Vance, breaking the American taboo highest-level face-to-face engagement representatives of Iran since diplomatic relations were severed in 1979 after the Islamic Revolution.
From a practical perspective, however, the meeting in Islamabad did not raise Iranian expectation that a deal can be reached. Iranian state media have quoted Iranian delegation sources as saying the US side was “looking for an excuse to leave”, writes The National.
So where do things then now stand? It is pretty much a stalemate, writes The New York Times, as the Strait of Hormuz remains controlled by Iran, while the objectives for the war of the US – Israel Alliance remain out of reach. The options 3W sees at this stage are the following.
One option is that Trump declares victory and walks away. That would not be as strange as it sounds, as Trump has done it before – many times, writes The Associated Press. AP notes also that when asked about the state of negotiations with Iran, Trump responded, “Regardless what happens, we win.” In this case, Iran maintains control over the Strait of Hormuz and ships paying to pass through the Strait becomes the new normal.
Another option is that negotiations continue behind the scenes, and eventually leads to an agreement that is acceptable to all parties.
A third option is a return to war. In the 3W view, this is actually the most likely scenario. Before the meeting in Islamabad US president Trump posted to his social media account saying that all US ships, aircraft, weapons, military personnel will remain “in place, in and around, Iran” until a full agreement is reached, writes CNN. He added that “the shootin’ Starts, bigger, and better, and stronger than anyone has ever seen before,” if no agreement were to be reached. Trump finished his post by writing: “In the meantime our great Military is Loading Up and Resting, looking forward, actually, to its next Conquest. AMERICA IS BACK”.
It appears this is also what Israel is pushing the US towards. While the negotiations were taking place Israeli prime minister Netanyahu posted on X that “Israel under my leadership will continue to fight Iran’s terror regime and its proxies”.
What we at 3W would expect the US – Israel Alliance to be doing at present, it to regroup, reorganize and rearm. Indeed, massive formations of Pentagon warplanes are racing toward the Middle East while dozens of US refueling tankers crowd Ben Gurion Airport, signaling a major military escalation following the collapse of Iran talks, writes JFeed from Israel. Part of the preparations is deployment of Pakistani fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, under the cover of the ceasefire talks, writes The National. Meanwhile, Trump threatened that as part of a next round of fighting, the US blockade entry into the Strait of Hormuz, writes Bloomberg. Trump also said the US Navy would interdict any vessel that had paid Iran’s toll and that “no one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas.” This latter move, in the 3W view, is most likely designed to squeeze Iran financially, among other ways by preventing it from selling its oil to China. The move of the Pakistani jets is designed to inhibit Iran’s ability to perform retaliatory strikes across the region. While the developments at Ben Gurion indicate a stocking up for new US – Israel Alliance attacks against Iran.
For further reading see our latest deep dive that follows Iran’s journey. Charting how a fractured empire became one of the most consequential states in global geopolitics. The Persian prize