DistantNews
Support us
🇮🇱 Israel /Conflict & Security

US-Iran deal: A decisive victory for generations or another agreement with metastases? - opinion

From Jerusalem Post · () English

Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

Opinion Sources not specified Context piece
  • An emerging framework for ending the war with Iran, if adopted, would represent a defeat for Israel against its original objectives, according to the author.
  • The author argues that Israel's primary goals were to neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat and its proxy network for generations.
  • The proposed agreement, which is divided into two stages, is seen as a temporary postponement of threats rather than a lasting solution, drawing parallels to the failures of the Obama-era nuclear deal.

An emerging framework for ending the current war with Iran, if finalized, would constitute a defeat for Israel when measured against the conflict's initial objectives, argues Yaron Buskilam.

If this war ends according to the emerging framework now being discussed, it must be said honestly: Measured against the war’s original objectives, this would amount to a defeat wrapped in the atmosphere of victory.

— Yaron BuskilamAssessing the potential outcome of the war based on current discussions.

Israel entered the campaign with the clear understanding that Iran, as the "head of the octopus," posed an existential threat through its nuclear project. Furthermore, Iran's expanding regional proxy network aims to wage a long-term, multi-front war of attrition against Israel. Therefore, the author posits, the only true benchmark for success is whether the Iranian nuclear threat and its proxy organizations have been neutralized for generations or merely postponed for a few years. At this stage, the outlook is not positive.

Israel entered this campaign with a clear understanding that Iran is the head of the octopus, that its nuclear project constitutes the central existential threat to the State of Israel, and that Tehran would not hesitate to use such capabilities not merely as deterrence but eventually as an instrument of initiative.

— Yaron BuskilamOutlining Israel's initial strategic understanding of the threat posed by Iran.

The agreement currently under discussion is not yet signed and appears to be divided into two stages: an initial arrangement for the Strait of Hormuz to stabilize the regional economy and secure navigation, followed by a broader nuclear agreement for regional stability. However, Buskilam contends that in the Middle East, "temporary" first agreements inevitably erode over time. The international community tends to adapt to threats that are never truly removed. Proposals like transferring enriched uranium to a third country are viewed as geopolitical improvisation, as a change in U.S. administration could quickly enable Iran to reclaim the material and pursue nuclear weapons. The author cites the Obama-era nuclear agreement as proof, stating it accelerated Iran's nuclear ambitions and provided the regime with resources and legitimacy, while weakening oversight.

Therefore, there is only one true benchmark for success: Has the Iranian nuclear threat and the threat posed by its proxy organizations been pushed away for generations, or merely postponed for a few years?

— Yaron BuskilamDefining the critical measure of success in the conflict.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by Jerusalem Post. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.

More Stories

From Our Blog