Israeli commentator says he expects US/NATO to strike Iran on their own

Award-winning Haaretz journalist and best-selling author Yossi Melman has made a startling claim likely to provoke the ire of US President Donald Trump’s MAGA base and even a section of Israelis: he believes the US and its Western allies should strike Iran’s nuclear sites without involving Israel. “I prefer the US or a Western military alliance, like NATO, to do it rather than Israel,” he told Open in an interview.

Melman’s views on Iran’s nuclear programme align with former President Trump’s off-the-cuff dismissal of Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard’s assessment during her congressional testimony in March. Gabbard had stated that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon and that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had not authorised the nuclear weapons programme since suspending it in 2003.

The Israel-Iran conflict has exposed deep divisions within Trump’s MAGA camp, an internal rift that contrasts sharply with neoconservatives who are lobbying for direct US military action against Iran. Figures such as Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Marjorie Taylor Greene have voiced strong opposition to US intervention, warning that it could endanger American lives and betray Trump’s 2024 campaign promises to avoid foreign wars.

While some polls suggest public support for direct American involvement in the Iran-Israel war that began on June 13, more credible surveys paint a different picture. A Economist/YouGov poll revealed that 53% of voters who backed Trump in the 2024 presidential election do not support the US joining Israel’s strikes. Similarly, a Chicago Council on Global Affairs–Ipsos survey in April found that as many as eight in ten Americans favoured either diplomatic efforts or tougher economic sanctions on Iran to curb its uranium enrichment for military purposes.

Seventy-four-year-old Melman, a former member of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Special Forces unit, pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had found Iran’s underground uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, now reportedly destroyed in Israeli strikes, was producing uranium enriched up to 60% purity. He warned that it would have taken the Islamic Republic merely two to three weeks to reach the 90% purity level required for weapons-grade uranium. Elaborating on the stages of building war-ready nuclear weapons, Melman claimed that within “a year and a half,” Iran would have been capable of mounting nuclear warheads on missiles.

Iran, for its part, denies such charges, maintaining that it has never taken steps to weaponise its enriched uranium stockpile and that its nuclear programme remains peaceful. Tehran also called on the IAEA’s 35-nation board to condemn Israel’s unprovoked strikes, which killed nine nuclear scientists.

At the heart of Israel’s concern lies the heavily fortified Fordow fuel enrichment plant near Qom, which Tel Aviv has so far failed to destroy. Some analysts have drawn parallels between current Western media portrayals of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, largely based, Iran claims, on Israeli intelligence, and the 2003 claims about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. Those claims, later proven false, served as a pretext for the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Melman, a recipient of the Sokolov Award, Israel’s high honour for journalism, for his investigative work on the Israeli security establishment, has at times courted controversy. A WikiLeaks report from February 2012 alleged that he was an “information mule” who had “channeled tips to the Mossad”—a claim Melman has denied saying it was untrue.

Author of numerous books including Spies Against Armageddon; Every Spy a Prince: The Complete History of Israel’s Intelligence Community; The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran; The Master Terrorist: The True Story Behind Abu Nidal; and Friends in Deed: Inside the US-Israel Alliance, Melman is also a documentary filmmaker and widely quoted Israeli political commentator. Asked about his frequent comments in the global media, he quipped, “But I am often misquoted.”

While asserting that Israel enjoys military superiority over Iran, Melman acknowledged that Iran’s leadership is not easily replaceable due to its deeply entrenched, multilayered system of power. He also dwelt on Iran’s historical resilience and its capacity to endure a prolonged war of attrition. According to him, Iran’s nuclear progress has been delayed by a range of factors, including religious hesitations, political assassinations of its top nuclear scientists, shifting geopolitics and economic sanctions.

Melman also argued that Russia has supplied Iran with military technology and weapons cautiously and at a slow pace, rendering Iran’s air force a “phantom phenomenon.” However, Iranian officials insist that their military capabilities are often underestimated by the rest of the world.

Russia, which has used Iranian drones in their special operations in Ukraine, remains firmly opposed to any direct US involvement in the region. On June 19, Russian President Vladimir Putin was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that Moscow could help negotiate a settlement allowing Tehran to pursue a peaceful atomic programme while addressing Israel’s security concerns.

As of now, Trump, following his remarks against Gabbard and his post seeking “unconditional surrender” by Tehran, has left people guessing — even as Israel and Iran exchange fire — about his final order on a possible direct American attack on Iran, saying, “I may do it, I may not do it”.

Donald TrumpgeopoliticsIran-Israel conflictNATOTulsi GabbardWeb Exclusive