Trump's Iran Deal: Critics Say It Sidelines Israel, Weakens Verification

In an op-ed published by Al Jazeera, a former Republican political strategist and surrogate for Donald Trump's 2016 and 2024 campaigns critically assessed the Trump administration's 14-point memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran, signed this week.

The author acknowledges that the deal halts active hostilities, reopens the Strait of Hormuz, lifts the naval blockade, and stops bombing on all sides. However, he stresses that the ceasefire was negotiated without Israel, the United States' closest ally in the region, which has borne the highest cost of confronting Iran's proxy network for two decades. Talks were conducted through Washington, Pakistani mediators, Geneva, and Versailles, but not through Israel.

The MoU includes an Iranian pledge not to procure or develop nuclear weapons—a commitment it has previously made and hollowed out. The disposition of enriched uranium stockpile remains vague, with on-site dilution rather than removal, and the harder question of enrichment rights deferred to a future final agreement. Verification is postponed to a final agreement due within 60 days, extendable by mutual consent.

Additionally, the deal creates a $300 billion reconstruction fund, which the author argues effectively funnels resources to a regime that arms Hezbollah and the Houthis, with no direct U.S. contribution but inevitable consequences. Lebanon is folded into the document as a side issue, while Israel has stated it will not withdraw from border areas it considers essential.

The author concludes that the agreement sidesteps Israel's security concerns and mirrors the flaws of the Obama-era deal that Trump once denounced. Though he credits the administration's strategy of military pressure followed by diplomacy, he urges that the next 60 days be used to incorporate Israel's red lines before a final accord is signed.