In a moment of historic tension with Iran, the silence following the meeting at the White House can signal decisions of extraordinary weight.
By Fiamma Nirenstein
JNS
Feb 11, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on Feb 11, 2026
The significance of the meeting at the White House between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday does not lie in any exceptional revelation, nor in their final statements—both of them notably general—about the central question of whether the path ahead leads to war or to negotiations.
Its meaning lies in the meeting itself.
At a moment of maximum tension, with strategic forces repositioned across the Middle East and Iran racing to protect and rebuild its nuclear and missile capabilities, the most powerful man in the world and the leader of Israel met urgently and in private. That fact alone speaks volumes.
The discussion reportedly focused on whether diplomacy can truly transform Iran—stripping it of uranium enrichment, ballistic missile power and its regional proxy strategy—or whether a near-term military strike is indispensable. Trump has framed the choice starkly. Iran must give up “this and that,” meaning not only enrichment but also the infrastructure that arms Hamas, Hezbollah and other proxies.
Meanwhile, the atmosphere is charged with the possibility of war. Aircraft carriers from the Lincoln to the Bush have been repositioned toward the region. American warplanes are multiplying. Israeli military exercises continue at high intensity. The David’s Sling missile-defense system has reportedly undergone significant upgrades.
Tehran, celebrating the anniversary of its revolution, signals that it is willing to discuss uranium—but far from total dismantlement. Vice President JD Vance has stressed that U.S. interests focus on nuclear and missile threats, leaving regime change to the Iranian people. That is a coherent American position. But it differs from Trump’s earlier promise of support to Iranians rising against oppression.
Netanyahu’s presence in the United States underlines the stakes for Israel. For Jerusalem, the wrong decision would carry existential consequences. If Washington moves militarily, Iran could immediately strike Israel. Regional actors such as Qatar fear retaliation against American bases on their soil.
Behind closed doors, without cameras or press statements of substance, Trump and Netanyahu likely examined both objectives and feasibility. How far is Iran from nuclear breakout? Can airstrikes alone neutralize the threat? Is there a realistic path to internal destabilization of the regime?
Israel has already exposed Iranian deception by seizing its nuclear archives, revealing continued enrichment despite international commitments. Trump has publicly warned that Iran has been “very dishonest.” He has also reiterated his preference for a negotiated solution—while making clear that Tehran “had better accept.”
Perhaps the most telling element of this summit is what we do not know. There were no dramatic announcements, no new doctrine unveiled. Yet the very opacity of the meeting—its urgency, its timing and its silence—suggests gravity.
Although we know nothing of the details, we can see how consequential this encounter has been.










