Zarif alleges Israel pursued Iran confrontation strategy for decades
Javad Zarif says Israeli governments used intelligence, lobbying and media pressure to keep Washington and Tehran at odds.
By Lucas Ferreira · Science & Environment Writer
3 min read
Javad Zarif has alleged that an Israel-Iran confrontation strategy has shaped decades of Middle East diplomacy, with Israeli governments working to keep Washington and Tehran from easing tensions. Writing for Al Jazeera, Zarif said the issue is newly relevant as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to meet US President Donald Trump amid continuing hostilities in the Gulf.
Zarif, who described his own role in past Iranian negotiations, argued that Israeli actions have repeatedly complicated efforts to settle conflicts or manage disputes involving Iran and the United States. Al Jazeera noted that the views expressed were Zarif’s own.
What is the Israel Iran confrontation strategy Zarif describes?
Zarif’s central claim is that Israeli leaders have often treated sustained US-Iran hostility as useful to Israel’s regional position. He said the tools varied over time, including intelligence disclosures, public messaging, lobbying and political pressure in Washington.
He cited scholarship on the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, saying some analysts have argued that Israeli strategic thinking favored preventing either side from winning quickly. Zarif also pointed to studies of wartime media that, in his account, said Israeli broadcasting sought to affect perceptions among Iranian, Iraqi and Arab audiences in ways that made compromise harder.
Zarif linked the pattern to the 1991 release of Western hostages in Lebanon. He wrote that UN mediator Giandomenico Picco later argued in his book Man Without a Gun that Israeli officials obstructed parts of a negotiated framework involving Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners, limiting the Bush administration’s ability to reciprocate after Iran helped with hostage diplomacy.
He also revisited the period after the September 11 attacks, when Iran and the United States had overlapping aims in Afghanistan. Zarif cited late US diplomat James Dobbins and former Secretary of State Colin Powell as saying Iran played an important role in the Bonn negotiations that shaped the post-Taliban political order.
According to Zarif, that opening narrowed after Israel publicized the interception of the Karine A ship in January 2002 and pressed Washington to see Iran as the region’s larger long-term threat. He cited Washington Post reporting and comments attributed to former Powell aide Lawrence Wilkerson, who said Israeli messages to US officials emphasized that Iran, rather than Iraq, was the main enemy.
The nuclear file became another major arena in Zarif’s account. He wrote that journalists and former officials, including Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter, have suggested Israeli intelligence helped route information about Iran’s Natanz facility through the MEK/NCRI in 2002. Zarif also cited former IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei’s later concern that questions remained about the origin of some nuclear-related documents.
Zarif said Netanyahu’s campaign against the 2015 nuclear agreement, including his speech to Congress, reflected Israel’s opposition to a major period of US-Iran diplomacy. He also cited memoirs by senior US officials describing tensions over Israeli pressure for a tougher line, including possible military action.
Turning to Trump’s first presidency, Zarif wrote that Netanyahu’s 2018 presentation of what Israeli officials called stolen Iranian nuclear documents helped build the case for leaving the nuclear deal. He said the US withdrawal was followed by the “Maximum Pressure” sanctions campaign and, in 2020, the US strike that killed General Qasem Soleimani.
Zarif also connected his argument to negotiations this year over a memorandum of understanding in Islamabad. He cited Vice President JD Vance’s recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, where Vance said some people within Israel’s system were trying to influence American opinion to keep the war going and portray negotiations as surrender.
Zarif concluded that future diplomacy between Washington and Tehran would have to account for what he described as outside efforts to shape intelligence, media narratives and domestic politics. His essay framed those efforts as a recurring obstacle to US-Iran conflict management over more than four decades.
This story draws on original reporting from Al Jazeera.