Zach Witkoff (@ZachWitkoff): With respect, that’s not just wrong — it’s backwards. The Israeli strike didn’t enable progress; it nearly derailed months of delicate diplomacy that…

With respect, that’s not just wrong — it’s backwards. The Israeli strike didn’t enable progress; it nearly derailed months of delicate diplomacy that had already brought the talks to the brink of success. Suggesting that a military escalation somehow “unlocked” a humanitarian release is to misunderstand both the timeline and the substance of what was actually happening. The President, my father, Jared and their team had been working for months to stabilize an impossibly volatile process — balancing pressure, backchannel trust, and humanitarian urgency in equal measure. When that strike occurred, it jeopardized everything they’d built. The fact that the deal still materialized afterward wasn’t because of the strike, it was in spite of it — a testament to relentless effort and steady hands keeping diplomacy alive when it could’ve collapsed entirely. So yes, the deal happened after the strike — but not because of it. To argue otherwise is to confuse coincidence with causation, and headlines with history.