Israel sees this moment as a critical window of opportunity to neutralize Iran's nuclear threat while it's weakened. Any deal that allows Iran to maintain enrichment capabilities poses an existential danger that must be prevented through military action if necessary. The Begin Doctrine requires taking preemptive action against nuclear threats before they fully materialize.

MilitaryIsrael strikescannot wouldafford beto dangerouslywait destabilizing and likelyrely ineffectiveon atdiplomatic permanentlyagreements settingthat backmay only temporarily restrict Iran's nuclear programcapabilities. DiplomaticGiven negotiationsIran's offerweakened thestate bestand pathdegraded forwardair defenses, withthere pollsis showinga 69%critical window of Americansopportunity preferto aeliminate negotiatedthe agreementexistential limitingthreat Iran'sposed by its nuclear program tothrough peacefuldecisive purposesmilitary underaction. strictThe monitoringBegin ratherDoctrine thanrequires militarypreventing actionhostile thatstates risksfrom regionalobtaining warnuclear weapons before it's too late.

Diplomatic negotiations offer the best path forward to peacefully limit Iran's nuclear activities. Military strikes would only minimally set back the program while risking a broader regional conflict. Iran has legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear technology under international law, and a negotiated agreement with strict monitoring would be more effective than military action in preventing weapons development.

Diplomatic negotiations remain the best path forward, as military strikes would risk broader regional conflict and only temporarily set back Iran's nuclear program. Iran has legitimate rights to peaceful nuclear technology under international law and demands for complete dismantlement are unrealistic. The focus should be on verifiable limits and monitoring.