The new head of Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, is reportedly seeking new ways to bring down Iran’s government.
When U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled a framework agreement with Iran designed to halt a devastating regional war and open the door to broader negotiations, Washington presented the deal as a triumph of diplomacy. For the first time since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the United States and Iran appeared willing to test whether coexistence, however uneasy, might be preferable to perpetual confrontation.
But while the agreement has been welcomed by diplomats anxious to prevent another prolonged Middle Eastern war, it has also exposed a growing divide between Washington and one of its closest allies: Israel. Far from embracing the diplomatic opening, several leading Israeli politicians have reacted with skepticism, hostility and, in some cases, outright defiance.
The emerging dispute is about more than the technical details of sanctions relief, uranium enrichment or ceasefire monitoring. It reflects a deeper strategic disagreement over the future of the region. The United States appears increasingly interested in managing Iran. Significant parts of Israel’s political establishment still appear committed to weakening it, containing it or, in some cases, encouraging conditions that could ultimately lead to regime change.
That tension has become impossible to ignore
In recent days, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has openly criticized the diplomatic process, warning against what he described as a weak approach toward Tehran. He has suggested that Israel could act independently if it believes its security interests are threatened, regardless of Washington’s preferences. According to reports, Ben-Gvir argued that the United States is being “very naive” if it believes Iran will abandon its strategic ambitions and indicated that Israel may ultimately have to confront Tehran alone.
Such comments reveal a fundamental problem confronting the peace initiative. Peace agreements work only when the principal actors accept the legitimacy of diplomacy as a means of resolving disputes. Yet parts of Israel’s governing coalition continue to view Iran not merely as a hostile state but as a regime whose existence itself constitutes the problem.
This is where the question becomes politically and morally uncomfortable.
If the stated objective of the U.S.-Iran memorandum is de-escalation, can key Israeli figures genuinely support it while simultaneously advocating policies aimed at maintaining military pressure or pursuing political transformation inside Iran?
The issue extends beyond Iran itself. Even as negotiations continue, Israel remains militarily active in Lebanon, where ceasefires have repeatedly come under strain. Fresh incidents in southern Lebanon have raised concerns about the durability of the broader regional truce and highlighted how fragile the diplomatic process remains.
Supporters of Israel’s position argue that such concerns are misplaced. From their perspective, Iran remains the chief sponsor of armed groups hostile to Israel, including Hezbollah. They contend that Tehran has repeatedly used negotiations to buy time while preserving strategic capabilities. In that view, skepticism toward diplomatic agreements is not extremism but prudence.
Yet critics counter that this argument risks becoming a justification for permanent conflict.
The most striking example emerged when Ben-Gvir called for Lebanon to be burned in response to Israeli military casualties. The statement triggered condemnation far beyond Iran’s allies. Even within Israel, political figures distanced themselves from the rhetoric. International criticism quickly followed.
It was in this context that U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders issued one of his sharpest criticisms of the Israeli government to date.
“This is not a normal statement from a normal cabinet member of a major nation,” Sanders wrote. “This statement from Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir is the statement of a war criminal.” Sanders went further, arguing that the current Israeli government does not deserve continued unconditional American support.
Whether one agrees with Sanders’ characterization or not, his reaction highlights a significant shift in Western political discourse. For decades, criticism of Israeli security policy remained largely confined to the margins of American politics. Today, it increasingly comes from mainstream lawmakers, former diplomats and even some traditional supporters of Israel.
The reason is not simply the conduct of military operations. It is the perception that elements within Israel’s current governing coalition are increasingly comfortable with rhetoric that appears incompatible with diplomatic conflict resolution.
That matters because international legitimacy is a strategic asset.
Israel’s military superiority remains unquestioned. Its intelligence services remain among the most sophisticated in the world. But diplomatic isolation can gradually erode even the strongest security position. The growing willingness of Western politicians to publicly challenge Israeli ministers reflects a broader concern that some members of the government are undermining Israel’s own long-term interests.
The same dilemma applies to reported discussions surrounding regime change in Iran. For years, many policymakers in Washington and Jerusalem believed that pressure, sanctions and covert action might eventually destabilize the Islamic Republic. Yet the recent conflict demonstrated the limits of that strategy. Iran absorbed significant military punishment while preserving the core structures of state power. The result has been a reluctant recognition in Washington that diplomacy may be the only viable path forward.
For hardliners in Israel, however, diplomacy risks institutionalizing what they regard as an unacceptable reality: an Iranian state that survives, adapts and remains influential.
This is the central contradiction exposed by the peace agreement. Washington increasingly sees stability as the objective. Certain Israeli politicians still see victory as the objective.
Those are not the same thing.
The challenge for Trump’s administration is therefore not only persuading Tehran that the United States is negotiating in good faith. It is also convincing allies that peace, however imperfect, is preferable to an endless cycle of escalation.
History suggests that ceasefires rarely collapse because enemies dislike them. They collapse because one side believes it can achieve more through force than through diplomacy.
The coming months will reveal whether the U.S.-Iran agreement represents the beginning of a new regional order or merely an intermission before the next confrontation. Much may depend not on Tehran or Washington, but on whether Israel’s political leadership ultimately decides that containing Iran is enough—or whether some remain determined to transform it.
New Mossad Chief Seeks New Ways to Topple Iran’s Regime
In the meantime the new head of Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, is reportedly seeking new ways to bring down Iran’s government.
According to reports, Roman Gofman told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that a war with Iran would lead to the rapid collapse of the Iranian government, three Israeli officials told CNN earlier this year.
However, nearly four months later, the government of the Islamic Republic remains in power despite months of conflict involving the United States and Israel. Since then, the Trump administration has launched negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program after reaching an initial agreement aimed at halting the violence.
Gofman’s predecessor, David Barnea, also believed that regime change in Iran could be achieved before stepping down earlier this month.
Previous Strategy Failed
Israeli newspaper Maariv reported on Monday that Gofman believes Barnea’s wartime approach failed.
That strategy reportedly included Mossad-led social media campaigns designed to weaken the Islamic Republic, as well as efforts to involve Kurdish groups in the conflict with Iran.
According to The Jerusalem Post, Gofman plans to restructure parts of the agency in order to adopt new strategies aimed at achieving the long-standing objective of regime change. Unsurprisingly, details of any new plans have not been made public, as their disclosure could compromise operational effectiveness.
A source told CNN, however, that the Israeli military has been less ambitious in its objectives, advocating the weakening of the Iranian regime rather than its outright overthrow.
After serving as military secretary to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Gofman officially took over the leadership of the powerful intelligence agency on June 2.
In March, The New York Times reported that Barnea had convinced Netanyahu that a conflict with Iran could trigger a popular uprising against the government in Tehran. The report also stated that Barnea presented the idea to the Trump administration during a visit to the White House in January.
Officials told the newspaper that the focus on regime change represented a fundamental flaw in preparations for the conflict, despite President Donald Trump’s recent assertion that he “never cared about regime change” in Iran.
First “Outsider” Appointed to the Role
Gofman moved to Israel at the age of 14 after growing up in Belarus. He joined the Israeli military as a teenager and spent more than three decades serving in the Armored Corps in a variety of positions.
He is the first outsider appointed to lead Mossad since 2011, a role that is traditionally filled by a senior figure from within the agency itself.
His appointment sparked opposition, and Barnea reportedly petitioned Israel’s High Court to halt the nomination. The court rejected the challenge.
In his inaugural speech, Gofman praised what he described as the “strategic turnaround” Israel had achieved “against the Iranian axis,” saying it had “changed the balance of power across the entire region.”
“But the mission is not yet complete,” he said. “The core of Mossad lies in covert operations against its targets. We will protect that mission at any cost.”
Poll Suggests Israelis View the War Negatively
A new survey published over the weekend found that a large majority of Israelis view the outcome of the conflict with Iran negatively.
According to data from Agam Labs and the Hebrew University, 82.9 percent of Israelis believe the military campaign against Iran weakened Israel’s long-term security, while 86 percent expressed a negative view of the war’s outcome.
The survey was reported as indicating widespread dissatisfaction with the results of the conflict and growing concerns about its strategic consequences.
In the U.S.-Israeli strikes of February 28, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed. He was subsequently succeeded by his eldest son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who has largely remained out of public view since assuming the position.
