ByDANIELLE GREYMAN-KENNARD

JUNE 15, 2026 15:38

Updated: JUNE 15, 2026 17:21

Although precise details of the accord between Washington and Tehran remain unverified by the White House, specialists consulted by The Jerusalem Post on Monday largely dismissed assertions from the Islamic Republic regarding a $12 billion transfer of frozen funds ahead of talks.

The semi-official outlet Mehr News Agency reported that Washington consented to releasing those assets plus another $12 billion across a 60-day negotiation window, referencing an alleged 14-point memorandum of understanding.

Maj. (res.) Alexander Grinberg, an Iran specialist at the Jerusalem Institute of Strategy and Security, informed the Post that while he discounted the Iranian account, he found more credence in indications that the US offered improved conditions following Israel's Sunday operation in Beirut.

Israel struck a Hezbollah command post in the Lebanese capital in retaliation for rocket barrages from the Iran-supported militant organization.

Comments from US President Donald Trump and Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on Sunday indicated the operation had jeopardized ongoing discussions.

Iranian sources informed the New York Times that the regime refrained from retaliating against Israel after diplomatic efforts by Trump.

Timing of asset unfreezing matters - expert

Dr. Ben Sabti, an Iran analyst at INSS, advised the Post to approach Iranian statements cautiously in the days ahead, citing inconsistencies between media reports and US positions, including Iran's denial that the US had lifted its Hormuz blockade.

“Until now, not $1 was released,” Sabti emphasized, noting that congressional approval would be required and Democrats would likely scrutinize any deal. “I assess that the Iran regime will become frustrated and begin to withdraw from the agreement, it's a thing that they do all the time, so we will have to wait and see how they destroy their chance, because they cannot tolerate any kind of agreement.”

Shany Mor, senior research fellow at the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, explained to the Post that the regime often presents its preferred outcomes as established facts by exploiting Washington's measured approach to disclosures.

Mor stressed that the only favorable terms the US was likely to give Iran were terms that could be quickly retracted should the regime fail in its promises.

“It’s important if it’s [the terms] entirely separate or comes with sanctions relief, and it’s important at what stage of an agreement it comes. So if the US is, for example, agreeing to unfreeze assets at the beginning of this ceasefire before even concluding a nuclear agreement that’s quite a bit graver than, for example, something that would be a partial unfreezing of assets conditional upon reaching agreements within 60 days,” Mor noted.

He added that Washington faced insufficient pressure to accept the reported conditions, as inflation from Hormuz disruptions had only minor effects. Although Iran caused notable costs to US assets regionally, altering calculations somewhat, America held a strong position, aware mainly that Tehran recognized Washington's reluctance for extended conflict.

Given the regime's economic fragility, Mor observed that Jerusalem would view any “lifeline” for Iran with concern. “One hopes,” he added, “that the benefit of that, in terms of an agreement or anything else related to the nuclear issue, is commensurate.”

Achieving a solid nuclear pact in 60 days would benefit both the US and Israel, yet Mor cautioned that weak terms paired with sanctions relief and asset access would simply enable Iran to rebuild capabilities and sustain proxy support.

Menahem Merhavi, a fellow at the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told the Post that even favorable terms would deliver only temporary gains for Tehran.

“Knowing how the regime mismanages the country, I see no great relief in the long term,” he commented, adding that Iran had more internal troubles to grapple with, and it was too late to buy legitimacy from the Iranian people.

“I see more frustration ahead. They will have no one to blame for the dire conditions of the economy.”

From a Gulf perspective, Bahraini political analyst Ahmed Alkhuzaie, a managing partner at the Washington-based political consultants firm Khuzaie Associates LLC, shared concerns that since the “financial injection offers Tehran short-term economic relief, the absence of strict oversight mechanisms raises the likelihood that renewed resources will be channeled into regional influence operations, sustaining networks of militias and proxies across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen,” which will continue to threaten the region.

Alkhuzaie also noted that the Islamabad Agreement relied on delays rather than real resolutions, “leaving the risk of Iran crossing the nuclear threshold intact, and fueling the prospect of a destabilizing regional arms race.”

Though the Israeli experts were fairly trusting in the Trump administration, Alkhuzaie made clear that the Gulf couldn’t afford to rely on “passive observation of deals struck behind closed doors” and argued that regional powers must push to be involved in ensuring “Iran’s regional conduct and respect for sovereignty” is a priority, “not merely its nuclear program.”