What Is the “Libyan Model” Israel Wants to Impose on Iran?

Since Donald Trump’s rise to the White House, senior Israeli officials — with the support of some American counterparts — have repeatedly floated what they call the “Libyan model” as a preferred approach to handling the Iranian nuclear file.

During his visit to the United States in May 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the matter clear, stating:

“We agree that Iran must never possess nuclear weapons. This can be achieved through an agreement — but only if it resembles the Libyan model: They [Iran] must dismantle, detonate, and remove all nuclear infrastructure under American supervision. That would be a good deal.”

Netanyahu added:

“The second scenario, which is undesirable, is for Iran to stall negotiations long enough that the military option resurfaces. Everyone understands this — and we’ve discussed it in detail.”

Similarly, Republican Senator Tom Cotton echoed in May that Trump preferred a deal with Iran “in line with the agreement Libya signed with the U.S. in 2003.”

But what exactly do Israeli leaders mean by the “Libyan model”, and how realistic is it when applied to Iran?

A Model Rooted in Distrust and Force

The so-called Libyan model is anchored in several core assumptions:

1. Total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure — permanently and irreversibly.

1. Zero tolerance for any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil, under any circumstance.

1. A credible military threat must remain on the table, even if a deal is reached.

1. All Iranian commitments must be binding and irreversible.

1. Sanctions relief should be temporary, with snapback mechanisms triggered by any minor Iranian infraction — unlike the 2015 JCPOA’s “sunset clauses.”

1. Negotiations must expand beyond the nuclear file to include Iran’s missile program, drone development, and regional influence.

1. A quick deal with no drawn-out talks like those between 2013 and 2015.

In essence, the “Libyan model” is not just about nukes — it’s a sweeping strategy to dismantle Iran’s sovereignty, regional clout, and military deterrence.

Why Israel Is Pushing for It Now

Despite the post–October 7 focus on Gaza and Lebanon, Israel is increasingly setting its sights back on Iran. However, any direct confrontation remains contingent on full U.S. backing — something the Biden administration has hesitated to offer. The complex nature of Iran-U.S. negotiations, paired with American caution, has thus far restrained Tel Aviv from launching a military campaign.

But this may soon change.

Reports suggest that Israel is preparing a new covert strategy against Tehran following the events of October 7, which could include:

- Targeted assassinations of key Iranian figures

- Sabotage of critical infrastructure

- Strikes on strategic military sites

Two Time Windows Shaping Israeli Thinking

1. Trump’s Potential Return (June–September 2025):
  
  This period is seen by Israeli analysts as a “golden opportunity.” Trump’s return could realign U.S. policy in favour of a hardline approach. It also coincides with what Israel perceives as a temporary weakening of Iran’s regional alliances. Delaying action could mean missing a rare political window.

1. Upcoming Israeli Elections (Before October 27, 2026):
  
  Netanyahu’s grip on power remains fragile after the October 7 fallout. His political survival may hinge on a bold move against Iran. But timing is critical — too close to the elections, and the move may be seen as electoral manipulation.

Iran Is Not Libya: Key Differences

Despite the pressure of U.S. sanctions and potential “snapback” measures, Iran is far from isolated:

- Strategic ties with China and Russia

- Renewed diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia (March 2023)

- Re-engagement with Bahrain and strategic partnership with Oman

Unlike Libya’s short-lived, externally supplied nuclear project, Iran’s program is:

- Decades old, with roots tracing back to 1941

- Indigenously developed, making it harder to dismantle permanently

- Technically advanced, allowing for rapid reconstitution if destroyed

As former U.S. negotiator Wendy Sherman put it:

“A strike may delay Iran’s program by a year or three — but Iran will rebuild it. You can’t bomb knowledge.”

Moreover, Iran has a solid track record in negotiations, from the 2003 talks to the 2015 JCPOA, making it implausible to treat it like Gaddafi’s regime.

The “Iranian Model”?

Current negotiations between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff suggest a very different diplomatic climate than what Israel envisions.

Details are scarce, but indications are:

- Iran refuses to permanently surrender its right to enrich uranium

- A potential compromise could involve a 6-month suspension, in exchange for formal recognition of its enrichment rights and comprehensive sanctions relief, including secondary sanctions

- Iran has also proposed forming an international consortium to oxidise enriched uranium and reduce levels from 60% to 3.6%

This is the logic of “suspension for suspension,” far removed from Israeli maximalism.

Conclusion

Israel’s vision of the “Libyan model” — dismantling Iran’s entire program, erasing its regional influence, and keeping military threats on standby — is far more extreme than what the United States is currently negotiating.

And in reality, Iran is not Libya. Its capabilities, alliances, and strategic maturity make it resistant to coercive surrender.

Yet, from June to September 2025, Israel may exploit a narrow window to launch shadow operations against Iran — aiming to sabotage negotiations and reset the balance of deterrence.

But make no mistake: the so-called “Libyan model” is a fantasy wrapped in aggression — one that reflects Zionist desperation more than strategic viability.