ByJPOST EDITORIAL

JUNE 14, 2026 05:55

Providing Iran with substantial funds twice over creates bigger hazards than a single release of such resources.

The United States and Iran indicated last week that they neared an agreement, with indications it might be finalized in Geneva soon.

Alongside those signals came details on possible terms: a memorandum of understanding launching another 60-day stretch of technical discussions; reopening the Strait of Hormuz; potential release of frozen assets; talks on dismantling Iran's nuclear activities and handling enriched uranium; plus wider understandings involving Lebanon.

Moreover, Israel has stayed outside the negotiations, leaving Israeli officials to restate that US President Donald Trump recognizes Israel's worries and requirements.

Should those accounts prove accurate, Trump's Iran framework spells trouble.

An MoU proves helpful when it secures firm commitments. It turns risky when it serves as entry payment for concessions ahead of resolving core issues.

A 60-day timeline may appear structured, yet in the Middle East that span allows ground realities to shift. Iran could relocate materials, reinforce sites, influence intermediaries, and frame any holdup as evidence of bad faith by others.

Accounts of Iran sealing tunnel access points

Earlier accounts noted Iran has already moved to block enriched uranium sites, such as collapsing tunnels and rigging entrances. If correct, it appears Tehran prepares an exit once US regional forces decrease and options narrow.

Excluding ballistic missiles from the central agreement would further weaken the framework. Iran endangers Israel not solely via uranium enrichment. It does so through missiles, drones, Hezbollah, the Houthis, militias in Iraq and Syria, plus the networks sustaining those threats against Israel.

An accord addressing nuclear material yet ignoring delivery systems and regional networks cannot credibly ensure Israeli security.

The reported chance of around $12b. in financial easing raises concerns. Even if the Trump administration claims funds release only after Iranian compliance, many who criticized the Biden administration over unfreezing $6b. in Iranian assets should see this as twice the hazard.

Tehran requires no financial boost to moderate. It needs one to rebuild, rearm, steady the regime, compensate loyal security units, and revive proxy networks that Israel and the United States have sought to diminish.

Such easing would also let down the Iranian people. They heard that the free world recognized the nature of their rulers. They heard that pressure on Tehran targeted those who imprison dissidents, oppress women, impoverish citizens, and divert national resources to foreign conflicts.

A repeat of Obama-era pact

This echoes JCPOA 2.0. The first nuclear deal was presented as a practical step to postpone Iran's nuclear goals. In reality, it granted Tehran time, funds, and standing while leaving much of its regional aggression untouched.

The present framework risks the same error under fresh branding: early giveaways, unclear order, postponed technical talks, optimistic enforcement, and avoidance of Iran's full power structure.

Israeli officials stating that Trump understands Israel's position does not suffice.

Understanding differs from alignment, and alignment differs from binding terms. Israel will bear the fallout if Iran evades rules, if Hezbollah gains strength, or if the northern border turns into another zone where Jerusalem must exercise caution while foes regroup.

The reported Lebanon element raises deep worries. Any concession pushing Israel toward halting combat in Lebanon absent firm assurances on Hezbollah disarmament, Iranian financing, and cross-border attacks would erode Israel's ability to protect its citizens.

No country should have to delegate security for its northern communities to pledges from Tehran.

All this stays uncertain. Forecasting Trump remains challenging even after announcements, and reported conditions can alter rapidly.

Yet if the reports hold, this is not a strong arrangement. It is a hazardous one, and it risks eroding the major American and Israeli work to weaken Iran's regime, curb its nuclear aims, and lessen the dangers it poses to Israel, the region, and beyond.