U.S.-Iran Deal Seen as a Historic Missed Opportunity, but Not Irreversible

A Hebrew-language opinion analysis argues that President Donald Trump’s framework understanding with Iran is a serious strategic setback for the United States and Israel, but one that can still be improved in the next 60 days. The piece says the talks, delayed in Switzerland, are supposed to lead to a permanent arrangement and could even continue beyond the U.S. midterm elections in November. It warns that Israel, which was excluded from the negotiations, must urgently restore strategic coordination with Washington at every level.

The authors say the framework gives Iran major concessions. They argue it links the war in Iran to the fight against Hezbollah in Lebanon, limits Israel’s freedom of action there, and implicitly requires an Israeli withdrawal while promising Lebanon’s territorial integrity. On the nuclear file, Iran pledges not to acquire nuclear weapons, but uranium enrichment is not frozen and the agreement allows diluted enriched uranium to remain in Iran under IAEA supervision, contrary to Trump’s earlier claims that the material would leave the country.

The article also says the deal provides Tehran with immediate financial relief, including permission to sell oil at once and the release of all $24 billion in frozen Iranian funds, without waiting for a final settlement. The Strait of Hormuz would reopen to traffic, but Iran would not charge transit fees only during the first 60 days. After that, the authors say, Tehran could try to impose charges despite international law. They also note that the agreement ignores Iran’s missile program, even though Trump reportedly acknowledged Iran’s right to possess missiles.

Beyond the substance, the authors say Trump’s eagerness to end the war weakened the credible military threat against Iran and allowed Tehran to preserve leverage over Hormuz, Gulf energy infrastructure, and regional stability. They argue Iran remains weakened by wartime damage, economic distress, and fear of renewed protests, so Washington still has leverage if it is willing to use naval power, tighter pressure, and economic coercion. They urge a parallel U.S.-Israel understanding covering intelligence sharing, red lines, military posture, and Lebanon, along with broader regional security coordination.