Long before Iran's nuclear ambitions became a staple of diplomatic summits and intelligence briefings, Donald Trump recognised the threat posed by the revolutionary Islamist regime. For decades, he correctly warned that Iran’s rulers could not be treated as a normal government pursuing normal national interests.
More importantly, he acted. In partnership with Israel, Trump authorised military action unprecedented in the history of the US-Israel alliance. Together, the two countries inflicted severe damage on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and missile capabilities. Combined with an economic embargo that deprived the regime of hundreds of millions of dollars in daily revenue, the campaign represented the most serious effort yet undertaken to roll back Iranian power.
For that alone, Trump will earn lasting gratitude from Israelis and from all those concerned with the security not only of the Jewish state but of the wider Middle East. The Islamic Republic has, after all, stood behind virtually every major conflict in the region for decades, funding, arming and directing a network of terrorist proxies stretching from Lebanon to Yemen.
Yet it is precisely because the President's actions have been so consequential that the reported details of the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran are so troubling. If accurate, they risk undermining much of what military action and economic pressure have achieved.
Any sanctions relief without adequate Iranian concessions on its nuclear and missile programmes and support for terrorism would be particularly concerning. Such relief would generate tens of billions of dollars for the regime and as under Barack Obama's flawed nuclear deal, that money is unlikely to be spent on schools or hospitals. Rather, it would be directed towards rebuilding military capabilities, replenishing missile production and restoring Hezbollah and other proxy forces.
Reports that negotiations may seek only to restrict Iranian uranium enrichment temporarily are equally concerning. In an interview with the New York Times on Sunday, Trump said the US was still negotiating whether Tehran would suspend its enrichment for 20 years.
He hinted that he might settle for a 15-year suspension, but said he did not want to negotiate via the press. If the regime survives through that period, it can simply wait out the restrictions. Nor is the prospect of permitting low-level enrichment thereafter reassuring. Once centrifuges are allowed to operate, arguments over how many may be used and how fast they may spin become an endless game of concealment and evasion – one at which Tehran has accumulated decades of experience.
Enforcement raises further questions. Military pressure works only if it remains credible and if Tehran concludes that force is now off the table, compliance becomes far harder to guarantee, no matter the terms of the final deal.
Particularly alarming are suggestions that Lebanon is part of a broader understanding with Iran. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said in a post on X that the deal would also end military operations in Lebanon. Such an arrangement would risk conferring international legitimacy on what is effectively Tehran's domination of Lebanon through Hezbollah.
Recent months have offered a rare glimpse of an alternative future. The weakening of both Iran and Hezbollah created political space for Lebanese leaders, however tentatively, to challenge Hezbollah's authority and even engage in direct talks with Israel. If Washington now allows Tehran to present itself as Lebanon's protector, those fragile developments may quickly disappear. Lebanese politicians who have cautiously tested a more independent course would have every incentive to retreat.
Moreover, the gains Israel has made in the north could quickly unravel. Its border communities would continue to live under the intolerable threat of rocket attacks and another October 7-style assault. Tying Israel's hands now would not bring peace but merely postpone conflict until a future date when Hezbollah has regained its strength, at a far greater cost to civilians on both sides.
The consequences would extend far beyond Lebanon. Should Tehran emerge bloodied but ultimately triumphant from this confrontation, Gulf states that have moved closer to Israel may conclude that accommodation with Iran is once again the safer course.
None of this is to suggest that the President of the United States should govern according to Israeli interests. His responsibility is to pursue American interests but the question is whether the emerging agreement serves those interests either.
Much will now depend on the next 60 days of negotiations. A successful final agreement should require the removal of Iran's stockpile of enriched nuclear material, a verifiable freeze on its nuclear programme backed by intrusive inspections, sanctions relief tied directly to ending support for terrorist proxies, and meaningful restrictions on Iran's ballistic missile programme.
The President's bold military actions created an opportunity that few believed possible. The challenge now is to ensure that the gains achieved on the battlefield are not forfeited at the negotiating table.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.