Professor Eytan Gilboa, an expert in Israel-US relations, a lecturer at Reichman and Bar Ilan Universities, and senior researcher at the Began Saadat Center of Strategic Studies, spoke with Arutz Sheva-Israel National News about the recent developments in the relationship between the United States and Iran and expressed doubt in the ability of the emerging agreement to serve Israeli and US interests.
Professor Gilboa notes that the details of the deal are not fully known, besides information published by Iranian media. At the moment, Gilboa says, the deal is a memorandum of understanding built in stages, with the first stage focusing on the Strait of Hormuz. In effect, it restores the situation to what it was before, allowing traffic in the strait and enabling $12-24 billion frozen in various locations, mainly in the Gulf States, to reach Iran. In the second phase, the sides will discuss the nuclear issue for 60 days, but the details of that stage are still unclear.
Prof. Gilboa points out that the memorandum of understanding does not mention the uranium that is enriched to 60%. "At first, Trump demanded that the uranium be removed (from Iran), and now they say they are fine with Iran diluting the uranium. From historical experience, we know that they are unwilling to forgo nuclear weapons, and for years, they lied about the purpose of their nuclear program. They claimed that the program had civilian purposes, but for civilian purposes, 3.67% enrichment is enough. 60% enrichment is for military purposes."
In effect, Gilboa says that "Trump paid in cash, and received deferred checks from the IRGC, and according to experience, these are bounced checks..." To his understanding, the cause of Trump's change in policy was the internal and regional pressure, and Trump's sense that the war did not produce the results he hoped for.
"While he claims that he won and that the Iranians don't have an air force, navy, and so on, all this didn't move the Iranians one millimeter from their demands." Prof. Gilboa is convinced that the 60 days of nuclear negotiations will not produce a complete agreement that includes all the complex technical nuclear issues, their oversight, etc.
"Regarding Lebanon, instead of weakening the connection between Iran and the Hezbollah terrorist organization, Iran demands that the connection be bolstered. Trump didn't manage to change this, and since he's so eager to reach a permanent arrangement, he agreed to it. With this, he violated a clear Israeli interest, which is also an American one, since the US wanted an agreement with the elected government and the disarmament of Hezbollah. The memorandum of understanding goes in the opposite direction."
Trump's anger at Netanyahu stemmed from the understanding that Israel's strike on Beirut's Dahieh suburb endangered the deal because of the connection that Iran demanded between the deal and Lebanon. According to Prof. Gilboa, Trump's conduct is mistaken since Iran needs the agreement no less than the US does.
He also points out that in contrast to Trump's claims about regime change in Iran, the regime is not what changed, but rather the characters running it, and they are no more pragmatic or moderate than their predecessors. Trump speaks of a peace deal when it is not a peace deal, as Iran continues its policy of seeking to destroy Israel.
He notes that "both the opposition and coalition in Israel believe that it is a bad deal and that the chances that Trump will manage to obtain the objective of neutralizing Iran's nuclear arsenal are very low. The Iranians are experts at wasting time, deception, and trickery. Trump thought he knew how to negotiate, but he doesn't. One of the rules that he wrote in his book is not to show too much eagerness to reach a deal, and that is exactly what he did."
During the weeks of negotiations, the Iranians were able to identify all of the weaknesses of President Trump, who was eager to reach an agreement before the midterm elections, which he is approaching from a weakened political position, with two-thirds of the public opposing war. As a result, there is virtually no chance of a return to war, and his threats to resume military action are viewed as empty, according to the analysis. “Under these circumstances, the chances that this memorandum of understanding will be good for Israel and the United States are very low."
Gilboa also noted that the blows inflicted on Iran did not destabilize the regime, which still feels very secure. He said protesters did not return to the streets because the forces responsible for suppressing demonstrations remained in place. “The Iranians say this document is an American acknowledgment of defeat. They postponed signing it so Trump would not be able to say it was a birthday present for him," Gilboa said.