Netanyahu told CBS the Iran war is not over and declined to rule out seizing nuclear material, while separate reports claim Trump told him ‘I want to go in’ regarding Iranian nuclear sites.
Summary:
- Netanyahu told CBS’s 60 Minutes the war on Iran is not over, with enrichment sites, missile capacity and proxy networks listed as unresolved objectives
- He alleged Iran still holds nuclear material that could be physically removed, declining to rule out military means to achieve it
- Separate unconfirmed reports indicate Trump told Netanyahu directly he wants to go in on Iranian nuclear sites, with nuclear material removal described as a continuing war priority
- Netanyahu acknowledged significant degradation of Iranian capabilities but was explicit that stated military objectives remain far from complete
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared that the war on Iran is unfinished, refusing to rule out military action to seize Iranian nuclear material, in an interview with CBS’s 60 Minutes set to air on May 10.
Netanyahu alleged Iran continues to hold nuclear material and said it could be physically removed through direct action, declining to elaborate on means. He listed remaining war goals as the dismantling of enrichment sites, neutralisation of Iranian proxies and destruction of ballistic missile production, all of which he said remain unresolved despite significant degradation of Iranian capabilities.
The most consequential element is the separate, unconfirmed reporting that Trump told Netanyahu personally he wants to go in on Iranian nuclear sites. These claims have not been independently verified and should be treated with caution, but their circulation reinforces the perception that the conflict is moving toward intensification rather than conclusion, with obvious implications for energy markets and the duration of the Hormuz supply disruption.
—
Netanyahu’s public declaration that the war is not over, combined with unverified reports that Trump has privately expressed a desire to physically enter Iranian nuclear sites, represents a significant escalation in the stated ambitions of the conflict and removes any near-term expectation of a negotiated wind-down. For oil markets, the implication is that the Hormuz disruption and associated supply shock are not approaching resolution; if anything, the scope of the military campaign may be widening. Any strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, or an operation to remove nuclear material, would almost certainly trigger a severe Iranian response and risk a major escalation across the region, potentially threatening energy infrastructure well beyond the strait. The already elevated geopolitical risk premium in crude would face further upward pressure if this reporting is corroborated or if military action on nuclear sites is confirmed.
