Former Israeli PM Says No One Can Predict

When a former Israeli prime minister says Iran cannot guess President Trump’s next move, it signals just how unstable and elite-driven this war and peace game has become.

Story Snapshot

Ehud Olmert says President Trump could either strike Iran again or cut a new deal, and no one can predict which path he will choose.
Olmert argues that only a renewed nuclear agreement can truly reduce the danger from Iran, even as military options stay on the table.
He warns that Israel may feel “betrayed” if Washington signs a deal with Tehran, but still may have no real choice except to accept it.
The debate shows how decisions by a small group of leaders can swing between war and peace while ordinary Americans and Israelis carry the costs.

Olmert: Trump’s Iran Playbook Is Impossible To Read

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Newsmax’s “Saturday Report” that Iran, Israel, and even experts like him cannot reliably predict President Donald Trump’s next step on Iran. He said Trump has shown he is willing to use major military force, yet also to negotiate and sign agreements that look close to the old Obama-era nuclear deal. This mix of pressure and outreach, Olmert argued, keeps Iran guessing but also leaves allies unsure whether to prepare for more war or a sudden peace deal.

Olmert praised Trump’s willingness to negotiate, saying the United States president understands the scale of the Iranian threat and is prepared to deal with it. At the same time, Olmert stressed that “no one” outside Trump’s inner circle can say with confidence whether the next move will be more strikes or a push for a broader agreement. That uncertainty, he suggested, is part of Trump’s style: it can scare Iran and restrain Israel, but it also leaves regular citizens in all three countries living with constant tension and risk.

Why Olmert Says A New Deal Beats More Bombs

Across several interviews, Olmert has argued that military force alone cannot solve the Iran problem. He notes that after months of fighting, Iran’s regime is still standing, its missiles still work, and its uranium stockpile remains inside the country, meaning key war goals were not met. Because of this, he calls a new nuclear agreement between America and Iran the “only possible way” to dial down one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints and to truly curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Olmert also points out that even a massive American attack is unlikely to cause regime change in Tehran, despite harsh threats from Washington. He says that if regime change ever happens, it will have to come from the Iranian people themselves, not from foreign bombs or invasion. For many Americans who are tired of endless wars and broken promises, that view may ring true: yet another conflict in the Middle East would add to debt, risk higher energy costs, and stretch the military, while still failing to fix the deeper political system inside Iran.

Israel’s Dilemma: Fear Of “Betrayal” But Few Real Options

Olmert warns that a new United States–Iran deal could be seen by many Israelis as a “betrayal,” especially by those who backed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hard line against Tehran. He explains that from Netanyahu’s original position, any move back toward a diplomatic agreement may feel like America walking away from Israel’s demands and security fears. But Olmert adds that if Washington and Tehran do reach a nuclear deal, Israel will likely have “no option” to attack Iran’s nuclear program without breaking with its main ally and facing global backlash.

“I don't think that anyone — at least not someone like me sitting here in Israel and watching from a distance — can read precisely, entirely, comprehensively what President Trump wants. I don't know.”

— Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert said it is difficult for Iran to… pic.twitter.com/ipZZzF5c0t

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) July 25, 2026

That bind reflects a deeper problem that many conservatives and liberals in America now recognize: a small circle of leaders and security officials can swing between war talks and deal talks while regular people have almost no say. Olmert notes that only the United States has the ability to truly destroy Iran’s hardened nuclear sites, meaning Israel’s freedom of action depends on decisions made in Washington. This leaves both Israelis and Americans watching from the sidelines while elite players debate strikes and treaties that could reshape the region and their own economic future.

What Shared Frustration On Both Sides Reveals

Olmert’s comments tap into a growing anger that spans the political divide in the United States. Many conservatives see years of globalist policies, open-ended wars, and weak deals that failed to stop Iran’s advance, while many liberals see “America First” tactics and sudden strikes that risk more chaos without building lasting peace. Both groups, however, can agree on one thing: decisions made over Iran look less like careful strategy for the public good and more like power games among presidents, prime ministers, and unelected national security insiders.

By saying that no one can read Trump’s next move, and that only a new agreement can curb Iran, Olmert is not pushing a partisan line; he is exposing how much of this crisis depends on a few leaders acting inside a tight circle. As Americans watch energy prices, inflation, and the risk of wider war rise and fall with each new threat or hint of a deal, many will see his warning as proof that the system serves the “deep state” and foreign policy elites first, leaving the American Dream and basic stability as afterthoughts.