Ex-Israeli Intelligence Officer Says Emerging Iran Deal Would Be a Strategic Failure

Dani Citrinowicz, a former head of the Iran desk in IDF Military Intelligence research, argues that the emerging agreement with Iran may be presented in Israel and the United States as a diplomatic achievement, but in strategic terms it would amount to failure. He says the campaign produced impressive operational gains, yet could end with the Iranian regime stronger than before. Citrinowicz, who served 25 years in intelligence and now researches Iran and the Shiite axis at the Institute for National Security Studies, says the war goals set on February 28 were not just to reduce Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile or secure a better nuclear deal, but to destabilize or even topple the regime in Tehran.

He notes that Israel carried out the first killing of a sovereign state leader in its history, so a limited agreement months later, focused mainly on the nuclear issue while leaving other pillars of Iranian power intact, would represent a huge gap between aims and results. If sanctions are eased and Iran regains access to billions of dollars, he argues, the regime would gain economically, diplomatically and regionally. Removal of oil-export sanctions, release of frozen funds and renewed access to financial assets could help Tehran rebuild both its economy and the military capabilities damaged during the war.

Citrinowicz says Iran is still far from the isolation sought by Israel and Washington, pointing to growing ties with Gulf states, especially the United Arab Emirates, as evidence that regional actors are preparing for a surviving Iranian regime. He adds that many of the Iranian concessions now being described as gains were already on the table before the war, including in a Geneva meeting between Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff. Meanwhile, Iran refuses to discuss the issues Israel sees as most dangerous, such as limits on its missile program, ending support for Hezbollah and other regional proxies, or dismantling the capabilities it uses to threaten Israel and its neighbors.

In his view, Washington prefers an agreement that keeps Iran away from a bomb in the short term, even if it strengthens the regime, rather than continued pressure that could push Tehran toward a nuclear breakout. But that compromise, he says, is itself a result of strategic failure: after months of fighting, the United States still lacks a solution for the Strait of Hormuz and cannot force Iran to surrender all remaining enriched uranium. Israel and the United States have damaged infrastructure, military systems and senior figures, but the tactical gains have not delivered the war’s goals. Citrinowicz warns that Iran could take early economic relief, drag out the talks and resist real concessions on uranium, enrichment facilities and stockpiles, while the U.S. may later lack the will for renewed military action. He cautions that nothing is final until an agreement is signed, and that President Donald Trump could still change course, but says the remaining choices are bad ones: return to war without a clear plan for victory, or sign a deal that delays the nuclear threat while strengthening Tehran.