Donald Trump cautioned Benjamin Netanyahu on March 26, 2026, against inciting a popular revolt inside Iran during a high-stakes telephone conversation. U.S. intelligence officials briefed on the call confirmed the president spurned an Israeli proposal to issue a coordinated public call for Iranians to flood city streets in protest. Benjamin Netanyahu argued that the Iranian regime sat near collapse after a series of high-level assassinations crippled the security system in Tehran. Israeli strategic planners believe the current period of internal instability offers a rare window to force a total change in government.
Why the hell should we tell people to take to the streets when they'll just get mowed down
Donald Trump emphasized the risk of a mass slaughter of civilians if a premature uprising failed to topple the ruling clerics. U.S. combat operations in the region continue, but the White House shifted its focus toward a negotiated settlement rather than a total overthrow. In fact, U.S. officials indicated the president views regime change as a secondary bonus rather than a primary military necessity. U.S. intelligence reports suggest thousands of Iranian protesters died in previous crackdowns before the current conflict began.
Israeli Assassinations Target Iranian Security Leadership
Israeli strikes on March 24, 2026, eliminated Ali Larijani, the national security chief and de facto acting leader of the country. A separate operation killed Gholamreza Soleimani, the head of the Basij militia, along with several high-ranking deputies. Gholamreza Soleimani commanded the primary force responsible for crushing domestic dissent and street protests. Violence in the streets of Tehran is still a primary goal for the Israeli cabinet despite the concerns voiced by Washington.
Israeli officials claim the removal of the Basij leadership was designed specifically to enable a popular uprising by removing the architects of state repression. Netanyahu told Trump that the Iranian regime is in complete disarray and lacks the internal cohesion to survive an outsized public demonstration. Meanwhile, the White House continues to push a 15-point peace framework intended to end the current regional conflict through diplomatic concessions. Tehran issued a formal rejection of the American proposal on Thursday morning.
Tehran Rejects White House Peace Proposal
White House negotiators drafted a 15-point plan that included important limits on Iranian missile development and a permanent freeze on nuclear enrichment. Iranian officials countered with a list of demands that includes $150 billion in war reparations to cover damage to infrastructure. Iranian state media broadcast the counterproposal, which insists on full Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz and a complete withdrawal of Western naval forces. But Iranian officials also demanded an end to all sanctions before any further peace talks occur.
For instance, the Iranian delegation led by Mohammad Ghalibaf maintains that U.S. combat operations must cease before any further dialogue occurs. Iranian negotiators characterized the original 15-point plan as an ultimatum rather than a basis for discussion. Mohammad Ghalibaf is the lead negotiator for the Islamic Republic after the recent assassinations cleared the path for his political ascent. And yet, Ghalibaf faces scrutiny for his own record of corruption and populist posturing within the Iranian political system.
Ghalibaf Emerges as Populist Iranian Negotiator
Analysts compare the Iranian negotiator to his American counterpart due to their shared background in high-end real estate and populist imagery. Mohammad Ghalibaf rose to power by blending military ruthlessness with towering infrastructure development projects during his tenure as Mayor of Tehran. Infrastructure projects under his leadership faced frequent allegations of graft and the embezzlement of municipal funds. Ghalibaf used these projects to project an image of a builder and a technocrat who could modernize the nation.
On a parallel track, the Israeli government remains convinced that the killing of Soleimani provides the best window for a domestic uprising. Israeli intelligence assets reported that small-scale protests began in the suburbs of Tehran following the news of the assassinations. Still, the U.S. and Israel disagree on the amount of chaos acceptable to achieve their shared goal of neutralizing Iranian influence. Discord between the two allies threatens the stability of the proposed peace framework as Netanyahu continues to lobby for more aggressive measures.
Strategic Rifts Between Washington and Jerusalem
That said, Israel maintains its right to pursue independent military and intelligence operations against Iranian targets regardless of American diplomatic efforts. Israel previously targeted Iranian scientists and military commanders without prior consultation with the White House. Iranian state media continues to frame the conflict as a struggle against foreign-backed terrorists and Zionist aggression. By contrast, the American perspective focuses on containing the conflict to avoid a broader regional war that could draw in other global powers.
Iranian negotiators believe they can use their control of the Strait of Hormuz to extract better terms from the United States. To that end, Iranian naval units conducted exercises near the shipping lanes this week to demonstrate their capability to disrupt global energy supplies. Negotiators from the European Union urged both sides to use the Ghalibaf-led delegation as a bridge toward a temporary ceasefire. Yet the American administration appears reluctant to engage with Ghalibaf given his history of crackdowns on student protesters in the late 1990s.
Iranian popular sentiment remains difficult to gauge accurately due to the state-run media environment and the ongoing military conflict. Popular support for the regime fluctuates based on the severity of foreign strikes and the availability of basic goods. So, the question of whether the Iranian people will actually flood the streets as Netanyahu predicts is still a gamble that Trump is not yet willing to take. Trump told his advisers that he prefers a deal that he can sign over a revolution that he cannot control.
The Elite Tribune Perspective
Watching Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu argue over the death toll of a revolution reveals the cynical mechanics of modern statecraft. Netanyahu seeks a messianic transformation of the Middle East, fueled by the blood of Iranian civilians he hopes will act as a sacrificial force against the mullahs. Trump, ever the transactional realist, views those same civilians not as a moral cause, but as a potential PR disaster that would stain his administration if the streets turned into a slaughterhouse. Ghalibaf, the so-called Iranian Trump, is perhaps the most dangerous player in this triad.
He understands the language of populist theater and real estate corruption far better than the aging clerics he currently serves. Tehran has not rejected peace; it has merely opened a bidding war, using the Strait of Hormuz as its primary collateral. The American 15-point plan is a fantasy if it expects a populist strongman like Ghalibaf to accept anything less than a total restoration of Iranian regional hegemony. Washington must decide if it wants a stable enemy or a chaotic vacuum, because Netanyahu's dream of a spontaneous uprising will only yield the latter.
Peace in this region is never built on points; it is bought with concessions that no one in this room is yet brave enough to name.