Critics in Israel Say US-Iran Deal Could Strengthen Tehran and Weaken Deterrence

Israeli critics say a prospective US-Iran agreement would be bad for Israel because it would only delay, not fully block, Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. They argue that the deal would leave much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact, rather than forcing the dismantling of enrichment facilities, centrifuges and accumulated know-how, so Tehran could resume its program if it violates the accord.

The article says opponents also object to the expected economic relief, including sanctions removal, release of frozen Iranian assets and other financial arrangements. They warn that fresh access to dollars could rebuild Iran’s economy, expand its defense budget and regional activity, and fund groups hostile to Israel and its allies.

Another major criticism is that the understanding would focus mainly on nuclear limits while leaving Iran’s ballistic missile program, drones and wider regional operations largely unaddressed. Skeptics also question enforcement, saying international inspectors cannot be everywhere at all times and that clandestine activity at undeclared sites could go undetected until the damage is done.

The article says some in Israel fear Washington may prioritize regional stability and avoiding war over sustained pressure on Iran, which could make it less supportive of future Israeli strikes. It also notes reports that Israel was not fully involved in all stages of the talks, raising questions about Benjamin Netanyahu’s influence on Donald Trump. Still, the piece says Iran is weaker than in past years after clashes and attacks, so even a deal would not necessarily restore its full strength immediately. The central uncertainty, it concludes, is whether the final accord will have effective long-term limits and credible enforcement, or simply give Iran money and legitimacy without enough constraints.