ByJACOB NAGEL

JUNE 14, 2026 15:17

Updated: JUNE 14, 2026 15:19

Public statements suggest a Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran is close to completion. Until the text appears, its exact terms stay unknown. Even after publication, interpretations will differ sharply, especially if secret side deals emerge. Some observers will call the result disastrous, as I do, while President Trump and certain European officials may describe it as a strong achievement. Debate will center on both what the text includes and what it leaves out.

For President Trump the central issue is whether history will view him as the leader who fixed Barack Obama's 2015 nuclear agreement or as the one who signed a weaker version while Iran stood at a low point.

The joint Israeli-American operation damaged large parts of Iran's nuclear sites, missile forces, and drone production, yet left key elements intact. The strikes may have started a path toward regime change, but they could also fuel greater extremism. The Revolutionary Guard, which holds real power alongside Supreme Leader Khamenei, now sees nuclear weapons as the only reliable shield and will pursue that goal with full determination.

The emerging US-Iran understanding, as currently described, lacks real substance and ignores the main problems. It focuses only on immediate concerns for both sides: limited reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to ease global oil pressure and the transfer of funds to Iran through partial sanctions relief.

Iran's Unprecedented Weakness

Remaining clauses merely outline topics for later talks. Each side will read those clauses to suit its own narrative and declare success. Iranian claims about fourteen principles and American denials already illustrate this pattern. A strong final agreement is unlikely to result from such talks.

After the military gains and Iran's clear vulnerability, Washington should have kept up maximum pressure, widened the naval blockade to include air elements, and struck key regime targets while preparing for eventual negotiations.

To follow that course, President Trump required backing from senior advisers including Vice President Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner. Instead he faced contrary advice. Concerns over midterm elections, fuel costs, Gulf allies, and military estimates that further pressure would require time all steered policy in the opposite direction.

Once the president decided on a thin memorandum despite Iran's record of defiance, he should have set one firm requirement that Tehran would initially reject but accept under continued strain: full dismantlement of remaining nuclear, missile, and drone programs, an end to terrorism support and internal repression, and unconditional reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Classic Iranian Delay Tactics

These steps needed to occur in practice rather than simply appear on a future negotiation agenda after funds began flowing. Iran excels at prolonging talks and avoiding commitments.

On the nuclear file, suspending enrichment for years or moving material out of the country falls short. Dilution inside Iran is also inadequate. Complete removal of all enrichment plants and equipment, destruction of all enriched material, demolition of underground sites, and closure of weapons-related laboratories are required.

The current outline lets Iran rely on its preferred approach of diplomatic stalling while claiming rhetorical victories.

Iran's top goal remains the lifting of sanctions and receipt of billions in revenue. Even modest inflows plus resumed oil sales would let the Revolutionary Guard quiet domestic protests, rebuild proxy networks, restore missile forces that could reach the United States, and prepare for a nuclear breakout after 2028.

A memorandum limited to vague Iranian pledges, sanctions relief, partial Hormuz access, and deferred core issues would represent a serious error better avoided altogether.

Such an accord would also signal to Iranians that the American president has again stepped back from supporting street protests, lowering chances for internal change.

Any link between this memorandum and developments in Lebanon, if it exists, would create serious problems, especially if binding. I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu has already told President Trump that Israel will reject such a commitment.

The Iranian Dirty Game

The regime will keep using the tactics it knows well. Only steady military and economic pressure stands a realistic chance of changing its conduct. Sustained pressure could also encourage renewed protests among citizens facing economic ruin and visible destruction, as occurred months after Operation Rising Lion. In the end only the Iranian people can replace the current leadership.

BG. (res.) Jacob Nagel is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a professor at Technion. He previously served as National Security Adviser to Prime Minister Netanyahu and acting head of the National Security Council.