Donald Trump’s political retreat in the conflict with Iran – triggered by the loss of 13 American soldiers and a marginal increase in the oil price of one dollar per gallon (3.79 litres) – marks a significant turning point. This limited setback apparently also contributed to Trump allowing the Iranian regime to dictate the terms of a controversial memorandum of understanding consisting of 14 points. The agreement grants Tehran a sixty-day breathing space with unrestricted access to oil exports. By all indications, these billions in revenue will not accrue to the Iranian civilian population, but will instead be channelled into the regime’s established priorities over the past 47 years: international terrorism, ballistic missile programmes, nuclear weapons development, and internal human rights abuses.
The contents of the memorandum of understanding stand in sharp contrast to the aggressive rhetoric Trump has employed since the outbreak of the conflict and to his unconditional support for the Iranian people’s, the Gulf states’, and Israel’s right to defend themselves against the regime’s terror, which has a declared objective of exterminating all the world’s Jews and controlling the entire region. His statements during the G7 summit in France, symbolically enough at the Palace of Versailles, appear deeply troubling.
Almost overnight, the Iranian regime has gone from being defined as extremists to being treated as rational partners for peace. Trump, who originally initiated military measures against Iran – admittedly only after the IDF had fought alone for twelve days – now paradoxically claims that the Iranian regime has a legitimate right to possess missiles on the same basis as other states.
Trump’s proposed strategy towards Hezbollah involves handing the initiative in Lebanon to Abu Mohammad al-Julani (with a background in ISIL), on the pretext that he would be more effective than the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Such an approach will inevitably lead to extensive violence against Lebanon’s Shiite population – which supported the Assad regime in Syria – and open the door to Turkish expansion under President Erdoğan. Such critical consequences are, however, ignored by Trump.
Trump’s memorandum of understanding
For a decade, Trump systematically criticised Obama for the agreement he signed with Iran in 2015, only to implement a similar line himself. He has even described the Iranian negotiators as “rational actors” who are “pleasant to work with”.
The agreement was signed, not coincidentally, between the leader of the world’s most powerful state and one of the weakest representatives of the Iranian terrorist regime, President Masoud Pezeshkian. An analysis of the document shows that it is formulated in such a way that the parties, bilaterally or unilaterally, are free to withdraw from the agreement. The agreement fails to address Iran’s role as a sponsor of international terrorism. Among other things, it recognises Iranian control over the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, contrary to established principles of international maritime law.
The first paragraph of the agreement appears to be the most problematic from an Israeli security perspective, as the United States here seeks to impose constraints upon Israel’s legitimate defensive operations in Lebanon. This is done without Israel having been involved in the negotiations or expressing any willingness to accept the agreement.
“1. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war declare, by signing this memorandum of understanding (MOU), an immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon. They undertake henceforth not to initiate any war or military operations against one another, to refrain from threats or use of force against one another, and to ensure Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. The final agreement shall confirm the permanent cessation of war on all fronts, including in Lebanon, as well as the other provisions of this paragraph.”
The potentially stabilising element in this brief document is the clause stipulating that American forces remain in the region until 30 days after the signing of a final agreement, but this may also signify an Iranian demand for a Middle East without American forces.
Upon the conclusion of a final agreement, the Iranian regime will receive at least 300 billion dollars. These funds will be extracted from neighbouring Arab states, which are compelled to finance the regime in order to avoid military attacks. The release of these billions is contingent upon a final agreement actually being concluded.
It is obvious that Israel will not comply with these restrictions, and Hezbollah had already violated the agreement on Thursday when it attacked Israel several times that same evening. Iran, for its part, also violated the agreement by refusing to meet the Vice President of the United States at a meeting in Switzerland, scheduled for Friday 19 June, and by blocking the Strait of Hormuz once again. As expected, the accusations are directed at Israel, which defended itself, rather than at Hezbollah, which attacked first.
While Israel fights for its existence, the West prioritises economic interests
The growing hostility towards Israel and the Jewish people in Western public opinion is fuelled by an antisemitic symbiosis between far-left and Islamist forces. They falsely advance serious accusations of occupation, genocide, and lack of a right to exist, and portray the state as an actor that prefers warfare to diplomatic dialogue. Israel’s military operations do not represent an expansionist war that will last forever, but a continuous struggle for existence that will persist as long as the threats remain. Israel has always been interested in peace with its neighbours, not in a war imposed upon it by those neighbours.
As a state that has for decades lived under explicit threats of annihilation from Tehran, and that continuously confronts Iranian proxy groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, as well as militias in Iraq and Syria, Israel has borne the principal burden in efforts to contain the Iranian nuclear programme. Despite this, the Trump administration chose to exclude Israel from negotiations with the Iranian regime.
The bilateral relationship between the United States and Israel has historically never been characterised by unconditional American support. In 1948, David Ben-Gurion resisted American diplomatic pressure against declaring Israeli independence, during a period in which the American arms embargo in practice affected the Jewish side most severely. In 1957, the United States, in agreement with Russia, forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai and Gaza following the Suez Crisis (Operation Kadesh). When the Reagan administration in 1981 suspended strategic cooperation after Israel had destroyed the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin responded by emphasising that Israel was not an American vassal state. These historical examples illustrate a constant reality: the United States supports Israel primarily when strategic interests converge.
For the United States, Iran represents a regional challenger, but also an integral piece in the global balance of power involving oil markets, the Strait of Hormuz, relations with China and Russia, domestic fuel prices, voter support, and diplomatic prestige projects.
For Israel, by contrast, the regime represents a direct existential threat in the form of nuclear ambitions, long-range missiles, and a network of violent proxy actors such as Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and militias in Iraq and Syria.
It is therefore crucial that Israel maintain an uncompromising line regarding its right to defend itself and not permit the terms of the country’s security to be dictated by either European antisemitism or regional terrorist actors. This is decided in Jerusalem – not in Washington, and certainly neither in Brussels nor Tehran.
It must also be remembered that the tens of thousands of Iranian demonstrators who have lost their lives in the struggle against the regime did not sacrifice themselves in order to secure low Western oil prices and imported goods or to finance the theocratic dictatorship. They fought for the fundamental human rights of which they were deprived in 1979.
Israel possesses considerable strategic value for the international community, including the United States, particularly through globally leading high-technology innovation. Strategic partnerships with actors such as India and the Gulf states also contribute to diversifying the country’s foreign-policy foundation. A future free Iran could constitute a stabilising force in the region and restore the historically close and friendly relations with Israel.
Just as Netanyahu successfully navigated Israel through demanding diplomatic challenges under both the Obama and Biden administrations, there is every reason to assume that he will handle the current strategic situation with comparable political skill. One can only hope that Trump, who until now has been Israel’s best friend, wakes up in time. For if Israel must strike the terrorist regime in order to save itself, there is no doubt that this is exactly what will happen.