Arguments by U.S. and Israeli Critics of the Iran–U.S. Understanding
WANA (Jul 11) – Many analysts argue that the interim understanding with Iran granted a series of concessions that were not only misguided but exceeded what could reasonably be justified, and that these concessions now need to be offset.
Among the most significant are the implicit recognition of Iran’s influence over the Strait of Hormuz by assigning discussions about the waterway’s future to talks with Oman; the commitment to facilitate the creation of a $300 billion investment fund; the inclusion of a Lebanon ceasefire provision that could allow Iran to rescue Hezbollah from its weakened position; and the granting of sanctions waivers, including a 60-day suspension of oil sanctions, without securing verifiable nuclear commitments from Tehran.
Critics contend that these concessions were exchanged for vague gains such as preserving the “status quo” in Iran’s nuclear program. In their view, this status quo cannot be independently verified because comprehensive international inspections are absent, nor does it prevent Iran from rapidly resuming previous nuclear activities.
The clenched fist sculpture at Tehran’s Enqelab Square. Social media/ WANA News Agency
They also argue that many of Iran’s declared nuclear facilities had already been damaged or destroyed in earlier strikes. As a result, maintaining the “status quo” effectively means freezing activities that had already ceased. In other words, critics claim that Iran sold the Trump administration “a dead horse” through the agreement.
Against this backdrop, opponents in both Washington and Israel argue that the United States should require the immediate and unrestricted return of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to all Iranian nuclear facilities—including key sites such as Kolang Kuh and Isfahan—as a fundamental precondition for any future steps. They also insist that Iran must fully implement the Additional Protocol and Modified Code 3.1. Recent remarks by IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi are viewed within this framework and are interpreted by critics as a calculated form of passive-aggressive pressure on Iran.
Critics further argue that, rather than leaving the issue of the Strait of Hormuz to Omani mediation, Washington should permanently guarantee the security of the waterway through a binding agreement backed by a military presence, while formally rejecting any Iranian claim to authority over, or the right to impose charges on, the strait.
They also point to ongoing efforts by the United States, Arab states, Europe, and other major powers to restore the previous security arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz.
Tehran Friday Prayer Leader: U.S. Will Not Be Allowed to Interfere in Strait of Hormuz Affairs
WANA (Jul 10) – Tehran’s interim Friday prayer leader, Hojjatoleslam Aboutorabi-Fard, said Iran “will not, under any circumstances, allow the United States to interfere in the affairs of the Strait of Hormuz,” adding that U.S. forces had failed in efforts to remove the strategic waterway from the control of Iran’s armed forces. He said […]
In addition, opponents argue that Washington should establish a mechanism for the immediate punishment of any Iranian violation of the understanding—including drone attacks or continued uranium enrichment—and preserve the option of withdrawing from the agreement as a tool of leverage if Iran fails to comply. They also maintain that the Lebanon ceasefire clause should be separated from the nuclear negotiations so that Iran cannot use it to strengthen Hezbollah.
Israel, they argue, should retain full operational freedom on its northern front and continue targeted strikes against Hezbollah’s infrastructure regardless of the ceasefire provision, preventing the group from rebuilding its capabilities. They also expect Israel to share intelligence on alleged nuclear sites with both the IAEA and the United States.
Overall, critics believe the United States should use its remaining military, sanctions, and diplomatic leverage to transform the current understanding from a temporary ceasefire into a framework centered on strict verification. Such a framework would allow unconditional, anytime nuclear inspections, permanently secure the Strait of Hormuz without any Iranian role, separate the Lebanon issue from the nuclear talks, and effectively give Israel a green light for military action in Lebanon, Iraq, and even Yemen.
From this perspective, given the publicly stated arguments of opponents of the agreement in the United States, a future U.S. withdrawal from the understanding with Iran would not be surprising.
What Levers Does Iran Hold Against U.S. Breach of Commitments?
WANA (Jul 09) – Recent developments in West Asia and the escalating military confrontation between Tehran and Washington have once again underscored the volatility of written agreements with the United States. Following the blatant violation of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) and repeated military adventures by Washington, a key question arises: what leverage does […]
