Netanyahu Says Trump Wants to “Go In” to Iran and Remove Nuclear Material as Middle East Crisis Deepens
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have just revealed the next phase of a rapidly escalating conflict with Iran and critics say it sounds dangerously close to the public unveiling of a potential American ground operation inside Iranian territory. In a bombshell interview with 60 Minutes that aired May 10, 2026, Netanyahu confirmed that President Donald Trump wants to physically enter Iran and remove the country’s remaining stockpile of enriched uranium following months of joint U.S. Israeli military operations.
The comments immediately triggered political shockwaves in Washington because they appeared to describe plans for a direct intervention mission before the American public or Congress had been formally briefed on any potential troop deployment. Speaking with correspondent Major Garrett, Netanyahu acknowledged that earlier military strikes had significantly damaged Iran’s nuclear infrastructure but insisted the operation was unfinished.
“There’s still nuclear material, enriched uranium that has to be taken out of Iran,” Netanyahu said. “What President Trump has said to me, ‘I want to go in there.’”
When Garrett pressed him on whether that meant physically entering Iran to seize the material, Netanyahu answered bluntly:
“You go in, and you take it out. If you have an agreement, and you go in, and you take it out, why not? That’s the best way.”
Those comments are now fueling fears that the United States could be moving toward a direct boots on the ground operation tied to Iran’s nuclear facilities, something successive American administrations have tried to avoid for decades.
The Crisis Many Experts Warned About
The irony hanging over the entire confrontation is impossible to ignore. Much of the enriched uranium at the center of today’s crisis exists because the Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran collapsed after Trump withdrew the United States from the deal during his first presidency.
The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, imposed strict international monitoring requirements and enrichment limits on Tehran in exchange for sanctions relief. At the time, international inspectors repeatedly reported that Iran was complying with the agreement’s enrichment caps. But Trump, backed heavily by Netanyahu and hardline Republican allies, withdrew from the accord in 2018, calling it “the worst deal ever negotiated.”
After the withdrawal, Iran gradually restarted and expanded uranium enrichment activities beyond the limits established under the agreement. That escalation eventually contributed to the current standoff now threatening to pull the United States deeper into another Middle Eastern conflict. Critics argue the administration helped create the exact scenario it now claims requires military intervention.
Strait of Hormuz Fallout
The collapse of diplomacy also contributed to one of the largest economic and geopolitical shocks of the decade: the destabilization of the Strait of Hormuz. The narrow waterway remains one of the most strategically important shipping corridors on Earth, with a massive percentage of global oil and liquefied natural gas exports passing through the region.
Following the breakdown of negotiations and subsequent military escalations, Iran backed disruptions and regional instability triggered repeated shipping crises, energy market volatility, and fears of broader war across the Persian Gulf. Analysts warned for years that abandoning diplomacy without a stable replacement strategy could push the region toward precisely this type of confrontation. Now the consequences are playing out in real time.
“Operation Midnight Hammer”
Netanyahu framed the current situation as an opportunity created by what he described as Iran’s weakest strategic position since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The comments follow the large scale U.S. Israeli strikes earlier this year known as “Operation Midnight Hammer,” which reportedly targeted multiple Iranian military and nuclear linked facilities after negotiations with Tehran collapsed. The strikes represented one of the most aggressive coordinated military actions against Iran in modern history. According to administration officials, Iran still possesses significant quantities of highly enriched uranium despite the attacks.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright claimed during a television appearance that Iran currently holds enough material for potentially ten nuclear devices, including over 1,000 pounds enriched to 60 percent purity. The administration has not publicly released detailed evidence supporting those exact figures.
The Ground War Fear
What has alarmed many lawmakers is that Netanyahu’s comments appear to go beyond airstrikes or covert sabotage operations.
Physically removing uranium from Iran would almost certainly require:
- special operations forces,
- secured transport corridors,
- intelligence coordination,
- and potentially prolonged military engagement inside hostile territory.
Critics say Netanyahu effectively announced the possibility of an American military incursion on national television before Congress or the public had a full debate about the risks. That concern intensified after Trump himself appeared to confirm the direction of the policy during remarks to reporters the following day. According to multiple reports, Trump said Iran had previously discussed allowing access to the material before later changing course, adding that the United States may need to “attain it at some point.”
Internal Resistance Inside the Administration
The growing military posture has reportedly created fractures within Trump’s own national security circle. Former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent resigned in March after criticizing the intervention strategy and questioning whether Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States itself. Reports also indicate some administration figures initially resisted escalation before Netanyahu personally lobbied Trump during a February White House meeting.
The debate now unfolding inside Washington echoes arguments heard repeatedly during the Iraq War era:
- whether intelligence is being overstated,
- whether allies are driving American military decisions,
- and whether intervention risks spiraling into a broader regional conflict.
A Dangerous New Chapter
Supporters of the administration argue the stakes are too high to allow Iran to retain enriched uranium capable of eventually supporting nuclear weapons development. Critics counter that the current crisis is the direct result of dismantling a functioning international agreement without replacing it with a stable diplomatic framework.
Now, after years of escalating pressure campaigns, collapsing negotiations, covert operations, sanctions, missile exchanges, and direct military strikes, the conversation appears to be moving toward something far more dangerous: American forces potentially entering Iran itself. And if Netanyahu’s comments accurately reflect current planning, the United States may already be far closer to that reality than the public realizes.
