Analysts Say the Iran Deal Strengthens Tehran and Leaves Israel Exposed

International media coverage of the US-Iran understanding portrays Iran as the main beneficiary and Israel as the side most disadvantaged by the deal. In Modern Diplomacy, analyst Ricardo Martins argues that the Middle East war has ended, at least for now, with Tehran emerging as a regional power. He says Iran is shifting “from survival to ambition” and building a “security resistance belt” stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, relying on the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon to create a new sphere of influence. Arab News, in an editorial, calls the deal a security disaster for Israel and says Benjamin Netanyahu is watching from the sidelines while Donald Trump effectively decided in Israel’s favor without consulting or warning it, adding that Israel has almost no ability to influence the US president.

CBC, citing security expert Sajan Gohel, says Iran has linked the fighting in Lebanon to the wider regional conflict and views Lebanon as an “escalation valve” to pressure Washington. In Israel, however, the response is much sharper. Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel is not bound by the agreement, but the article says the country still has clear reasons to worry because its stated war goals remain unmet. Those goals were to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, remove the ballistic missile threat, and dismantle its proxy network, led by Hezbollah. The deal, CBC says, leaves the Islamic regime in place and Hezbollah weakened but still deadly. A major open question is whether Washington can actually force Israel to comply with the US-Iran terms. US Vice President J.D. Vance hinted that Israel would have little room to maneuver, saying, “We definitely expect the Israelis to be part of this process.”

The New York Times focuses on the paradox in Netanyahu’s strategy against Iran. It says the agreement omits several of the key outcomes Netanyahu wanted, and that important questions remain unresolved, including what will happen to Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium and whether it will be allowed to continue enriching nuclear fuel during the 60 days of further negotiations. The paper also says Iranian officials claimed the framework calls for halting military activity “on all fronts, including Lebanon,” which could limit Israel’s freedom of action against Hezbollah. The result, the Times says, is a paradox: a war intended to shape Netanyahu’s legacy may end in a way that harms it, leaving Iran’s regime intact while Israel worries that the final outcome falls far short of its opening objectives.