Prime Minister Netanyahu has now outlined what, in Israel’s view, would constitute a genuine agreement with Iran. Not monitoring. Not temporary limits. A structural removal of the capabilities that make Iran dangerous in the first place.
His four conditions form a coherent strategy — each targeting a different layer of Iranian power projection.
Remove All Enriched Uranium
The first demand addresses the breakout problem directly.
Inspections can slow a program, but they do not erase it. As long as enriched uranium remains inside Iran, the regime retains the option to move quickly toward a weapon the moment circumstances change.
Israel’s position is simple: a threshold nuclear state is already a nuclear threat. The only reliable safeguard is physical removal of the material from Iranian territory.
Remove the Enrichment Infrastructure
Even removing stockpiles is insufficient if centrifuges remain.
Enrichment machines are the program’s restart switch. A frozen program can resume in weeks. A dismantled one cannot.
This condition rejects the logic of earlier agreements built on pauses and supervision. It replaces delay with irreversible rollback.
Limit Ballistic Missiles to 300 km
This clause reveals the broader strategic logic.
Iran’s missile arsenal is not defensive — it is a delivery system. Without long-range missiles, even a future nuclear capability becomes geographically contained. Israel, Europe, and much of the Gulf fall outside effective strike range.
In effect, range limitation turns a strategic threat into a localized one.
Dismantle the Proxy Network
The final condition moves beyond nuclear issues entirely.
Iran’s power does not rely primarily on its own military. It relies on Hezbollah, militias in Syria and Iraq, the Houthis, and Palestinian armed factions — a forward-deployed regional army.
From Jerusalem’s perspective, a nuclear agreement that leaves this network intact merely protects ongoing aggression behind diplomacy.
What This Really Means
Together, these conditions describe something far larger than a nuclear deal. They amount to a rollback of Iran from expansionist regional power to contained state actor.
Past negotiations sought compliance.
This framework seeks capability removal.
And that difference explains the persistent gap between Western diplomatic expectations and Israeli security doctrine: one tries to manage risk — the other tries to eliminate it.