Published on: 2026-02-18

AI-powered OSINT brief from verified open sources. Automated NLP signal extraction with human verification. See our Methodology and Why WorldWideWatchers.

Intelligence Report: US government carrying out Israels demands seeks to denuclearize Iran at all costs

1. BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

The current U.S. strategy towards Iran’s nuclear program appears heavily influenced by Israeli demands, potentially steering towards military confrontation rather than diplomatic resolution. The most likely hypothesis is that the U.S. is using negotiations as a facade while preparing for possible military action, driven by Israeli interests. This affects regional stability and U.S. foreign policy credibility. Overall confidence in this judgment is moderate due to limited direct evidence of U.S. intentions.

2. Competing Hypotheses

• Hypothesis A: The U.S. is genuinely pursuing a diplomatic resolution with Iran but is constrained by Israeli influence, leading to conflicting signals. Supporting evidence includes ongoing negotiations and Iran’s concessions. Contradicting evidence is the U.S. military buildup and Israeli intervention in past talks. Key uncertainties include the true extent of U.S. commitment to diplomacy.
• Hypothesis B: The U.S. is using diplomacy as a cover for preparing military action against Iran, in alignment with Israeli objectives. Supporting evidence includes the military buildup and historical patterns of sabotaged diplomacy. Contradicting evidence is the progress in technical negotiations. Key uncertainties involve the actual decision-making process within the U.S. administration.
• Assessment: Hypothesis B is currently better supported due to the pattern of military preparations and past diplomatic failures following Israeli interventions. Indicators that could shift this judgment include a significant de-escalation of military presence or a breakthrough in negotiations without Israeli interference.

3. Key Assumptions and Red Flags

• Assumptions: The U.S. foreign policy is significantly influenced by Israeli interests; Iran is willing to comply with a reasonable agreement; military buildup is a strategic deterrent rather than preparation for conflict.
• Information Gaps: Details of internal U.S. decision-making processes and the extent of Israeli influence on U.S. policy; Iran’s genuine intentions regarding nuclear compliance.
• Bias & Deception Risks: Potential source bias from Iranian informants; cognitive bias towards assuming military intentions due to historical patterns; possible Israeli manipulation of public narratives to influence U.S. policy.

4. Implications and Strategic Risks

The current trajectory could lead to increased regional instability and potential military conflict, impacting global security and economic markets.

• Political / Geopolitical: Escalation could lead to broader Middle Eastern conflict, straining U.S. alliances and international diplomatic efforts.
• Security / Counter-Terrorism: Increased risk of retaliatory actions by Iran or its proxies against U.S. and allied interests.
• Cyber / Information Space: Potential for increased cyber operations by Iran targeting U.S. and Israeli infrastructure; information warfare to shape public opinion.
• Economic / Social: Potential disruptions in global oil markets; increased refugee flows and humanitarian crises in the region.

5. Recommendations and Outlook

• Immediate Actions (0–30 days): Increase intelligence collection on U.S. and Israeli decision-making; enhance diplomatic engagement with regional allies to de-escalate tensions.
• Medium-Term Posture (1–12 months): Develop resilience measures against potential Iranian cyber threats; strengthen partnerships with European allies to support diplomatic solutions.
• Scenario Outlook:
  • Best: Successful diplomatic agreement with Iran, leading to regional de-escalation.
  • Worst: Military conflict initiated by U.S. or Israeli actions, leading to widespread regional instability.
  • Most-Likely: Continued diplomatic stalemate with periodic escalations in military posturing.

6. Key Individuals and Entities

• Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister
• Donald Trump, U.S. President (as of February 2026)
• Steve Witkoff, Trump envoy
• Abbas Araghchi, Iranian Foreign Minister
• Not clearly identifiable from open sources in this snippet.

7. Thematic Tags

regional conflicts, nuclear negotiations, U.S.-Israel relations, Middle East stability, military buildup, diplomatic strategy, Iran sanctions, geopolitical conflict

Structured Analytic Techniques Applied

• Causal Layered Analysis (CLA): Analyze events across surface happenings, systems, worldviews, and myths.
• Cross-Impact Simulation: Model ripple effects across neighboring states, conflicts, or economic dependencies.
• Scenario Generation: Explore divergent futures under varying assumptions to identify plausible paths.

Explore more:
Regional Conflicts Briefs ·
Daily Summary ·
Support us