A New York Times analysis that angered President Donald Trump argues that the U.S. campaign against Iran failed to achieve its main goals, despite Trump’s claim of a total military victory. The piece says the current understanding between Washington and Tehran leaves Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile program unresolved, and it portrays the deal as not ending the core threat American and Israeli officials had identified.
The article says that after 100 days of fighting, the balance of threats in the region has not fundamentally changed. Iran’s nuclear program was badly damaged but not eliminated, and its future now depends on later negotiations. The same is true for Iran’s ballistic missiles, which the agreement does not address. The regime has survived, though with new leaders, its proxies remain active, and Israel and Hezbollah have continued trading attacks. The text also notes that Iran is again threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz.
Kate McFarland Telmadge of MIT said the document does not reflect U.S. military superiority, but rather the fact that Washington “bit off more than it could chew” and wants to avoid escalation. The agreement includes major economic benefits for Tehran, including sanctions relief and a reconstruction fund worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Vice President J. D. Vance defended it, saying that if Iran never changes, it will not get the deal’s benefits, but that it is still worth trying.
Iranian officials welcomed the chance to disrupt global shipping during the war. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker, said enemies turned a potential threat into reality, adding, “God created them stupid.” The Times also drew criticism for a clause saying unspecified U.S. forces will withdraw from Iran’s vicinity within 30 days. Former U.S. ambassador Robert S. Ford questioned why Washington would negotiate over force deployments, while Israeli officials and analysts, including retired intelligence officer Danny Citrinowicz, warned the memo amounts to “the collapse of the entire strategy” Israel had for Iran. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute director Karem Hagag said the region will be “much less secure,” and analyst Paul Salem called the deal “a bit of nothing” after a long and destructive war.
