Diplomacy funded by illusions: Trump's deal with Iran must be more than promises

As talks with Iran appear to be progressing, a familiar temptation arises in Washington: declare progress, lower tensions, and announce a framework. This approach is understandable given the public's weariness of Middle East conflicts, the market's desire for stable energy prices, and the diplomatic pursuit of agreements. A deal promising calm can seem like statesmanship after periods of conflict and fear.

However, for Israel, judging Iran solely on the mood of the moment is not an option. US President Donald Trump has indicated that an agreement with Iran is largely negotiated. The critical question is whether this deal will lead to the genuine dismantling of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, verified removal of enriched uranium, strict inspections, and a lasting end to its nuclear ambitions. If the agreement provides sanctions relief and diplomatic normalization while leaving Iran's core capabilities intact, it would reward Tehran for brinkmanship.

Israel's experience with the 2015 nuclear agreement fuels this skepticism. That deal was presented as a breakthrough but was viewed in Jerusalem as a dangerous bargain, with temporary restrictions, sunset clauses, and insufficient focus on Iran's missile program and its network of regional terror proxies. The central debate then, as now, revolves around the time Iran gains and the infrastructure it retains, particularly concerning what happens when restrictions expire.

Iran's nuclear program is inextricably linked to its ballistic missile arsenal and its network of regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. A narrow agreement that freezes one aspect while funding the rest of the system would create an illusion of progress, masking a continued reality of danger. Therefore, Washington must make clear principles: sanctions relief should only follow verified concessions, not precede them. Promises from Tehran are insufficient; verification, dismantlement, and intrusive inspections must come before any economic rewards.