The prospect of a new nuclear deal with Iran has sparked significant concern for both Israel and the United States, rooted in strategic, security, historical, and Biblical considerations. This is all the more so with the Supreme Leader of Iran himself publicly rejecting the US terms, and reports that the US might allow continued uranium enrichment.
On a recent episode of the Inspiration from Zion podcast, analysts Pastor Trey Graham and John Haller discussed these concerns from a variety of perspectives, affirming that they are not only legitimate but also deeply intertwined with both nations’ national interests.
For Israel, the primary concern regarding any nuclear deal with Iran is the existential threat posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and overt genocidal goal to destroy Israel. Graham commented, “Israel is rightfully worried about Iran having nuclear capability. It is 100 percent legitimate fear by the Israelis.” Iran’s persistent pursuit of nuclear weapons, despite international agreements, is seen as a direct threat to Israel’s survival. The Iranian regime’s historical strategy of delaying negotiations, the proclivity for which President Trump stated and then deleted in a recent social media post, while continuing uranium enrichment exacerbates this concern. “The Iranian strategy has always been historically the centuries-old Persian strategy… to delay and delay and delay.” This tactic allows Iran to advance its nuclear program under the guise of diplomacy, undermining any trust in potential agreements.
Most recently, with reports that Israel has assured the U.S. that it will not attack Iranian nuclear facilities unless its negotiations with Iran fail, the ayatollahs are surely smiling. This can only be seen as a win for them, underscoring that just by running the clock under the guise of negotiations is a tactic that does work. One can only imagine if the goal is to get a deal, at what point the U.S. will acknowledge such negotiations have been fruitless. At that point, if it were up to the Islamic regime, it would already be too late.
When asked if Israel’s concerns were compounded by the expiration of the sunset clauses in the Obama-era 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Graham noted that the JCPOA’s constraints are effectively moot, as Iran considered the deal void after the 2018 U.S. withdrawal. The lack of enforceable restrictions and trust fuels Israel’s concerns that any new deal will no less fail to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, leaving Israel vulnerable to a regime that has openly called for its destruction along with the means to do so. Graham drew a biblical parallel to the Book of Esther, likening Iran’s current leadership to Haman, a Persian figure intent on annihilating the Jewish people. This historical analogy underscores the gravity of the threat, framing Iran’s nuclear aspirations as a modern manifestation of Persian genocidal intent.
For the United States, concerns about a new nuclear deal with Iran extend beyond Israel’s security to broader geopolitical and ideological implications. Haller emphasized that Iran’s nuclear program is “not just an Israeli problem. It’s a Western democratic United States problem.” The Iranian regime’s ideology is driven by a desire for Islamic conquest and control, posing a threat to democratic values and Western interests globally. He points to Iran’s support for proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, which destabilize the Middle East and directly challenge the U.S. and its allies.
Haller expresses frustration with a perceived pro-Iranian bias within parts of the U.S. intelligence and security apparatus, noting, “The U.S. deep state intelligence, security apparatus has been extremely pro-Iranian.” This bias, coupled with Iran’s access to valuable resources, may drive U.S. policymakers to pursue negotiations that prioritize perceived short-term stability over long-term security. Haller warned that such deals risk ignoring the fundamental threat posed by the Islamic regime, which he describes as a “huge juggernaut” with ambitions extending beyond the Middle East to Europe and the United States.
Both Graham and Haller view the issue through a biblical lens, which informs their analysis of U.S. and Israeli policy. Graham argued that the Bible is “never irrelevant to this conversation,” citing the story of Esther as a precedent for confronting existential threats. He referenced the prophecies of Jeremiah 49:34–39, regarding the destruction of Elam’s (modern-day Iran’s) military might, suggesting that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could align with divine will. However, with Israel’s modern sovereignty and military capabilities, the Jewish people are not defenseless as those in Persia 2500 years ago.
Haller invoked Genesis 12:3, which promises blessings for those who bless Israel and curses for those who curse it, as a guiding principle for U.S. policy. He expressed concern that the Trump administration’s current approach, including backchannel negotiations through Oman, may not adequately support essential efforts to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat. Haller argued that the U.S. must recognize the alignment of its interests with Israel’s, rooted in shared Judeo-Christian values and democratic principles, to counter Iran effectively.
Both analysts questioned the trustworthiness of any deal with Iran’s current regime. Graham noted, when asked if any deal with Iran can be trusted, “The President says, no,” emphasizing modern Iran’s history of deceit and non-compliance. Haller added “No deal with Iran could be trusted with the current regime.” They argue that Iran’s strategy of delaying while advancing enrichment renders negotiations ineffective. Graham suggested that only military strikes or regime change can halt Iran’s nuclear progress, as negotiations have historically failed.
For Israel, the challenge is deciding whether to act unilaterally, given the uncertainty of U.S. support. Graham noted, “Israel has to decide: Are we going to move forward with a military attack on Iran, regardless of American participation.” Haller acknowledged Israel’s capability but highlighted the difficulty of targeting underground facilities without U.S. participation. He also warned that even a successful strike may not eliminate Iran’s institutional knowledge, necessitating repeated actions unless – complementing Graham’s point – coupled with regime change.
The concerns about a new nuclear deal with Iran are as deep as the underground bunkers in which the Islamic regime has hidden its nuclear facilities. They are deeply legitimate for both Israel and the United States. Israel faces an existential threat from a nuclear-armed Iran. The United States must contend with Iran’s broader threat to Western democracies and its destabilizing global influence through proxies. Both underscored the need for a biblical and strategic alignment, urging policymakers to prioritize decisive action over flawed negotiations. As Graham advised, Israel must keep the issue “front and center” for the U.S., while Haller calls for recognition of the shared stakes for Israel and the U.S. in confronting Iran’s ambitions. Ultimately, their insights (can be viewed here) highlight the urgency of addressing Iran’s nuclear threat to safeguard both nations’ security and values.
