Trump’s Iran deal may be worse than Obama’s, former Netanyahu security adviser says

A potential Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and Iran is approaching, but its true implications remain uncertain, according to Jacob Nagel, a former security adviser to the Israeli prime minister.

Nagel expresses concern that the agreement, even after its release, will be subject to wide interpretation, especially if undisclosed understandings or side agreements emerge. He believes that while some will label it a catastrophe, others, including President Trump and European leaders, may present it as a positive outcome. The debate, he suggests, will center not just on the agreement's content but also on what it fails to address. For Trump, the critical question is whether he will be remembered for correcting Obama's deal or for signing an even worse one when Iran is at its weakest.

Despite a successful Israeli-American campaign that degraded Iran's nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missile, and drone capabilities, Nagel warns that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) still views nuclear weapons as an "insurance policy." He describes the emerging U.S.-Iran understanding as "hollow" and detached from core issues, primarily addressing the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to ease global economic pressure and facilitate funds into Iran through sanctions relief. Other provisions, he notes, are merely placeholders for future discussions, allowing each side to claim victory based on their interpretations.

Nagel contends that following the military campaign's success and Iran's "unprecedented weakness," the United States should have continued its "maximum-pressure campaign." This, he argues, should have included expanding the naval blockade, conducting extensive strikes against the regime's interests, and simultaneously holding discussions for a future settlement. He believes pursuing such a strategy would have required full support from Trump's close allies.