Are Witkoff and Kushner US envoys or Israels agents in Washington

Are Witkoff and Kushner U.S. envoys — or Israel’s agents in Washington?

TEHRAN - Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff have become two of the most controversial figures in the US–Israel war against Iran, and nearly a month into the conflict their role is under sharper scrutiny than ever.

As speculations regarding talks of a possible ceasefire circulate, Iran has made it clear that it will not accept any agreement unless its core demands are met — an end to all US‑Israeli aggression, full reparations for the destruction inflicted, and binding guarantees that neither Washington nor Tel Aviv will ever attack Iran again. In this tense environment, the question of who truly represents the United States has become unavoidable, especially as Kushner and Witkoff continue to act as Washington’s supposed diplomatic channel.

Before the war began on February 28, the pair served as the official US representatives in nuclear negotiations with Iran, participating in the final rounds of talks in Geneva. Their presence was intended to signal Washington’s willingness to pursue diplomacy. Instead, their conduct — and the timing of subsequent military actions — deepened Iranian distrust. Both men have long‑standing personal and political ties to Israeli leadership, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and their negotiating positions closely mirrored Israeli demands. This has led many in Tehran to question whether they were acting as US envoys at all, or as de facto agents of Israel’s strategic agenda.

Suspicion hardened when the United States and Israel launched their joint attacks on February 28 while negotiations were still underway, echoing a similar pattern from June 2025 when military action interrupted talks. For Iranian officials, this confirmed that the diplomatic track had never been sincere and that the envoys at the table were not negotiating in good faith.

Analysts argue that Washington and Tel Aviv believed Iran’s government would collapse quickly, especially after the martyrdom of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and that the envoys’ role was part of a broader destabilization strategy rather than a genuine diplomatic effort.

Earlier, a senior Iranian political source, speaking to the Tehran Times, summarized this view bluntly: “None of Trump’s previous envoys have been deemed worthy of exchanging messages from the Iranian side.” The same source described recent US diplomatic signals as a “deception plan,” insisting that Iran has no confidence in messages conveyed through intermediaries and sees no change in the United States’ fundamentally hostile posture. According to this assessment, efforts to negotiate through figures like Kushner and Witkoff are not genuine attempts at diplomacy but extensions of a pressure campaign coordinated with Israel.

Countries such as Pakistan have attempted to facilitate communication, but Iran has responded firmly to US outreach, reiterating that Kushner and Witkoff are not acceptable channels for any serious negotiation. Tehran’s rejection is rooted in the belief that these envoys do not represent an independent American position and therefore do not deserve to carry messages to Iran or to be spoken to.

Although Kushner and Witkoff were officially designated as US envoys, their close alignment with Israeli leadership, the timing of US‑Israeli military actions during negotiations, and their perceived role in pushing Washington toward war have led Iran to conclude that they are advancing Israel’s agenda rather than pursuing genuine diplomacy. Their involvement has become a major obstacle to any meaningful diplomatic progress, and in the eyes of Iranian officials, they lack the legitimacy required to engage with Tehran at a moment when the stakes of war and peace could not be higher.

source: tehrantimes.com