Former Israel Navy commander Vice Admiral (res.) Eliezer Marom has appealed directly to President Donald Trump, warning that a temporary victory over Iran could leave the regime free to pursue its nuclear ambitions and threaten the world again.
By Hezy Laing
A ceasefire could stop the fighting with Iran, but it would not necessarily stop Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. That is the warning former Israel Navy commander Vice Admiral (res.) Eliezer “Cheney” Marom delivered directly to President Donald Trump in an open letter published in The Jerusalem Post on November 9.
Marom, who commanded the Israel Navy from 2007 to 2011, argues that Trump faces a historic opportunity to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, but must not allow short-term political considerations to undermine that goal.
His appeal comes as Washington weighs its next steps in the conflict with Tehran and diplomatic efforts continue.
A decision that will define history
Marom reminds Trump that America’s position as the world’s leading power carries responsibilities beyond its own borders.
He points to former presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, arguing that both confronted domestic opposition, public skepticism and significant political costs when they decided to stand against threats to the international order.
His message is that consequential leaders sometimes have to make difficult decisions despite public opposition, rather than choosing the politically convenient option and leaving a greater danger for their successors.
Marom acknowledges that Americans have grown weary of prolonged foreign wars, particularly after the costly military campaigns of recent decades. However, he rejects the idea that America should retreat from its international responsibilities simply because confronting dangerous regimes carries political risks.
“America First does not have to mean America Alone,” Marom writes.
He argues that preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is not merely an Israeli interest, but a matter of international security.
The danger of declaring victory too soon
The heart of Marom’s warning is that damaging Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure does not necessarily mean the regime has abandoned its ambitions.
Even if Iran’s facilities have been badly damaged, the knowledge, expertise and determination behind its nuclear program cannot necessarily be eliminated through airstrikes alone.
The regime could eventually attempt to rebuild its capabilities if it retains the determination and resources to do so.
“We must not assume that military defeat or damage to its current capabilities will necessarily lead it to abandon these ambitions,” he writes.
For Marom, this is precisely why Washington must look beyond the immediate results of its military campaign. A temporary agreement that ends the fighting without resolving the nuclear threat could leave the international community facing the same danger again.
He emphasizes that the Iranian regime’s nuclear ambitions threaten not only Israel, but the entire Middle East and countries that value freedom and democracy.
A warning Marom has repeated for months
Marom’s latest appeal is part of a consistent warning he has delivered for months: agreements that leave Iran’s strategic ambitions intact may simply postpone the next confrontation.
In June, he warned in an interview with Israeli radio station 103FM that diplomatic arrangements with Iran could create further instability rather than lasting security.
In August, he raised concerns that Israel might eventually have to confront Iran without American military participation, pointing to Washington’s reluctance to launch further strikes.
His latest letter therefore represents a continuation of his argument that postponing decisive action could give Tehran another opportunity to strengthen its military position.
Trump’s moment of decision
The timing of the letter is particularly significant. On November 9, Trump said he would hold off on additional military strikes against Iran following appeals from regional countries, while maintaining the American naval blockade.
The diplomatic track remains uncertain, leaving open the question of whether any eventual agreement will adequately address the nuclear threat.
Marom is not calling for war simply for the sake of continuing the conflict. He wants the military achievements of the campaign to produce a lasting result rather than another temporary pause.
He concludes by putting the responsibility directly on the American president:
“Will you be remembered as the leader who settled for a temporary military achievement, or as the leader who ensured that the Iranian regime could never fulfill its ambition of acquiring nuclear weapons and holding the world hostage?”
