Duvi Honig is Founder & CEO of the Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce
Much has been written about President Donald Trump's recent approach toward Iran. To many observers, it appears reckless-as though Washington has surrendered leverage by putting sweeping incentives on the table before Iran has fundamentally changed its behavior.
There is, however, another possible interpretation.
What if this is not recklessness at all? What if it is a calculated attempt to force Iran into revealing its true intentions before the American people and the world?
Traditional diplomacy is built on gradualism. One concession is exchanged for another. Trust is earned in small increments. Every step is conditioned on verified compliance.
Trump has often rejected conventional negotiating tactics. Throughout his career, he has favored dramatic moves that force the other side to make a decision rather than allowing endless negotiations to continue. It is possible that his approach to Iran follows the same philosophy.
Instead of offering one incentive at a time, perhaps he deliberately placed nearly everything on the table.
If Iran genuinely wants peace, the logic goes, it now has every opportunity to prove it. If, instead, Tehran accepts economic relief or diplomatic openings while continuing to expand its nuclear capabilities, arm terrorist proxies, or threaten its neighbors, then it exposes itself. The regime would no longer be able to claim that America refused to negotiate or denied it a fair opportunity.
Such an outcome would strengthen the case for renewed international pressure. It would become far easier to convince skeptical allies that diplomacy-not sanctions-had been given every chance to succeed.
From a political standpoint, that is not an irrational strategy.
In fact, it could be viewed as an attempt to remove every excuse Iran has relied upon for decades.
But recognizing the possible strategy does not eliminate the risks.
This is an extraordinarily dangerous game to play, because the consequences of failure will not be measured in headlines or polling numbers. They will be measured in lives.
And those lives are most likely to be Israeli.
Unlike Washington, Israel does not enjoy the luxury of geography. America is separated from Iran by thousands of miles and two oceans. Israel lives within missile range of Iran's proxies. Every diplomatic gamble carries immediate security consequences for Israeli families.
That reality cannot be ignored.
History has repeatedly demonstrated that Iran is remarkably skilled at buying time. Negotiations have too often become opportunities to regroup, replenish finances, strengthen regional influence, and continue advancing strategic objectives while the world debates process instead of results.
For Israel, delay itself can become a victory for Iran.
That is why any strategy built around testing Tehran's intentions must include unmistakable red lines. If Iran fails to meet clear, verifiable commitments, consequences must follow swiftly and decisively.
Otherwise, diplomacy risks becoming an end in itself rather than a means to achieve security.
Israel's experience reinforces this lesson.
Israeli leaders have repeatedly entered negotiations hoping agreements would produce lasting peace. Sometimes, although rarely, they have succeeded. Other times, concessions have been followed by renewed violence, larger rocket arsenals, and stronger terrorist organizations.
Those experiences have understandably left many Israelis deeply skeptical of promises that are not backed by enforcement.
This is not an argument against diplomacy.
Diplomacy is often preferable to war. Every responsible leader should exhaust peaceful options before considering military action.
But diplomacy succeeds only when the other side believes there is a real cost for violating its commitments.
That is the principle now being tested.
If President Trump is indeed attempting to call Iran's bluff, history may ultimately judge the strategy as politically shrewd. If Iran refuses generous terms or violates clear commitments, Washington could rightly argue that every peaceful avenue was explored.
Yet even a strategically coherent plan can carry unacceptable risks if the price of failure is paid by America's closest ally in the Middle East.
Israel cannot become collateral damage in an experiment designed to prove a diplomatic point.
The challenge is that time itself can become Iran's greatest weapon. Every month gained through negotiations can provide opportunities to rebuild capabilities, strengthen regional proxies, refine its nuclear program, or wait for political winds in Washington to change.
Supporters of the current strategy may view it as an effort to expose Tehran's true intentions. Critics, however, argue that Iran's long-term strategy has often been to outlast its negotiating partners, betting that future American administrations may be less willing to apply maximum pressure than the current one.
For that reason, any diplomatic initiative must be measured not by its promises, but by verifiable actions and meaningful enforcement. Israel's security cannot depend on optimistic assumptions or the hope that Iran will voluntarily abandon ambitions it has pursued for decades.
Testing Iran's intentions may be a legitimate negotiating strategy. But allowing Iran to use diplomacy simply to buy time would carry consequences that could extend well beyond this administration-and those consequences would be felt first and foremost by Israel.