Netanyahu Tells 60 Minutes Iran War Isn’t Over Until Uranium Removed and Proxies Disarmed

A conflict Netanyahu says is unfinished

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the confrontation with Iran has “accomplished a great deal” but is not over, arguing that the campaign cannot end while key elements of Iran’s strategic capabilities remain intact.

In an extended interview with 60 Minutes’ Major Garrett, Netanyahu listed unfinished objectives: removing enriched nuclear material from Iran, dismantling enrichment sites, addressing Iran-backed proxies, and preventing further production of ballistic missiles. Israel and the United States, he said, have degraded parts of Iran’s infrastructure, but “all of that is still there, and there’s work to be done.”

Netanyahu’s conditions for ending the war

Netanyahu repeatedly framed the end-state as elimination of multiple threats at once. Beyond nuclear material and enrichment facilities, he said any agreement should cover missiles and proxies.

He described two pathways. One is non-military pressure, pointing to a blockade and economic pressure that he attributed to President Donald Trump’s approach. If those measures can secure results “with non-military means,” Netanyahu said, “fine.”

But he also said he and Trump agree that military action could resume if necessary, declining to detail operational plans when pressed about scenarios absent an agreement.

How uranium could be removed—if there’s a deal

Asked how highly enriched uranium would be physically removed, Netanyahu said: “You go in and you take it out.” He described a concept involving special forces from Israel and the United States working together under international supervision, but refused to elaborate on military methods.

Netanyahu emphasized that, in his view, the mechanics are not the main obstacle. “If you have an agreement and you go in and you take it out, why not?” he said, calling that the “best way.” When asked whether it could be taken out by force without an agreement, he said he would not discuss Israel’s military possibilities.

Netanyahu’s case: Iran’s intent and the nuclear timeline

Netanyahu argued that the Iranian leadership’s stated hostility toward Israel and the United States makes the nuclear question urgent. In the interview, he said Iran calls Israel the “little Satan” and the U.S. the “big Satan,” and portrayed the regime as committed to America’s destruction.

He said Iran was very close to developing a nuclear bomb and claimed that without two military operations, Iran would have had one “within now or within a month or two.” He did not provide a timetable for how long it would take to prevent Iran from ultimately achieving nuclear weapons capability, but said the mission is crucial because he does not want Iran to be able to deliver nuclear warheads via ballistic missiles.

Netanyahu also recounted meetings with Trump in 2016 and again eight years later, saying Trump’s first words in both encounters were that the U.S. cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons and that Trump intended to leave what Netanyahu called a “terrible Iran deal.”

Why Netanyahu says Trump shifted from pressure to action

Netanyahu described Trump’s first-term strategy as relying on sanctions to bring Iran “to its knees,” including sharply reducing Iran’s oil exports. He said sanctions slowed Iran’s progress but “didn’t stop them,” and claimed Tehran returned to enrichment and full efforts toward a nuclear weapon.

In Netanyahu’s telling, the decisive change was that Iran had come very close to achieving a nuclear weapon, prompting military action.

Regime stability, leadership questions, and internal fissures

Netanyahu assessed the Iranian regime as being at its weakest point since 1979, while stressing that hardliners remain in place. He said joint military efforts hit Iran’s economic and industrial capacity, citing strikes on facilities he described as part of a “money machine,” including petrochemical and steel plants used to produce raw materials for rockets and ballistic missiles.

He said the damage has fueled debates inside the regime, with some pushing to continue while others fear economic collapse and public revolt. Netanyahu claimed the leadership’s “real fear” is that the people will rise.

On the Supreme Leader’s condition, Netanyahu said he believes he is alive but likely hidden, and suggested his authority is weaker than before. He declined to say who on the Iranian side could negotiate a durable deal, stating he shares his views privately with Trump.

Hezbollah, Lebanon, and a separate battlefield

Turning to Lebanon, Netanyahu said Israel’s conflict is with Hezbollah, which he described as an Iranian proxy holding Lebanon “hostage.” He said Hezbollah had 150,000 rockets and missiles before the war—“the densest concentration” on Earth—and that Israel destroyed more than 90% of that arsenal, while acknowledging thousands of rockets and some ballistic missiles remain.

Netanyahu said Israel established a security belt to push back forces he said were preparing an attack, including 5,000 Radwan force fighters. He argued Israel will not accept a ceasefire arrangement that leaves Hezbollah intact, even if Iran seeks to separate the fronts.

Toppling Iran and the proxy network

Netanyahu said the collapse of the Iranian regime is possible but not guaranteed, likening political failure to bankruptcy that happens “gradually and then” suddenly. He suggested that if Iran’s regime were toppled, it could mean the “end” of Hamas and “probably” the end of the Houthis because the proxy “scaffolding” would collapse.

He also referenced uprisings following Israeli operations he named “Rising Lion” and “Midnight Hammer,” saying protests erupted after Israel achieved air control over Tehran, but that demonstrators were later violently suppressed.

Coinasity's Take

The interview underscores a clear Israeli position: any end to hostilities hinges on verifiable removal of enriched uranium, dismantlement of enrichment capacity, and rollback of Iran’s missile-and-proxy architecture. Netanyahu’s remarks also highlight the policy tension between coercive economic measures and the stated willingness to re-escalate militarily if core objectives are not met.