Former Israeli security chief warns ceasefire with Iran may create a bigger threat later
After the Iran, U.S. ceasefire agreement was signed, Prof. Eitan Shamir, head of the Begin-Sadat Center at Bar-Ilan University, said the deal may give Tehran room to recover rather than end the danger. He said Israel would have preferred to keep up military, economic, and diplomatic pressure on Iran, because the accumulated pressure had caused the regime significant damage. But, he added, Israel cannot confront Washington directly and must adjust when the U.S. chooses a ceasefire and a broader settlement.
Shamir said the current agreement should not be compared too quickly with the nuclear deal signed under Barack Obama. The Obama accord, he said, was a detailed nuclear agreement with inspections and restrictions, while the current deal is mainly a framework for ending hostilities and opening negotiations. The real issue, he said, is what happens after the 60-day period and whether a permanent agreement will emerge.
On reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried in the final moments to block the deal, Shamir said it is hard to know what happened behind the scenes, but Israel clearly preferred continuing pressure. Still, he said, when the American president changes strategic direction, Israel’s influence is limited. He called the biggest danger the possibility that the pause will give Iran time, resources, and freedom to rebuild its nuclear and missile programs, leaving Israel facing a more severe threat later.
Asked about Lebanon, Shamir said a reduction in pressure on Iran would likely lead to renewed efforts to rebuild Hezbollah, though the group suffered a major blow in recent years and would need years to recover. He rejected Trump’s claim that Iran will give up nuclear weapons, saying the regime sees the nuclear program as a central strategic asset and a form of survival insurance. He said sanctions relief and the unlocking of some Iranian assets may come, but not necessarily a dramatic cash influx, and Iran’s economy remains very weak. Looking back at the March war decision, he said it was right because it inflicted substantial damage on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs and weakened its proxy network, but the key question now is how to turn those gains into future leverage.
