Stephen M. Flatow is an attorney and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror (now available in an expanded paperback edition on Amazon.com) and is the president of the Religious Zionists of America-Mizrachi. An oleh chadash, he divides his time between Jerusalem and New Jersey.)
Now we’ve read the deal.
For weeks, supporters of the Trump administration defended the emerging understanding with Iran by arguing that critics were reacting to rumors and media leaks. We were told to wait until the actual document appeared before passing judgment.
Fair enough.
Now we have read the memorandum of understanding.
And the questions are even bigger.
The debate is no longer about secrecy. It is about substance.
The published text outlines a framework under which military operations would cease, sanctions relief would begin, Iranian oil exports would resume, frozen Iranian assets would be released, and negotiations toward a broader agreement would continue.
Supporters describe it as a diplomatic breakthrough. Critics see it as a risky wager on a regime whose word has rarely proven reliable.
Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of diplomacy. What should not be controversial is the right to ask questions.
Yet some administration officials seem increasingly irritated by those who remain skeptical, especially Israelis. Vice President JD Vance has publicly suggested that Israel should trust the judgment of the United States. Other administration spokesmen have offered similar assurances.
But “trust us" is not a Middle East strategy.
Indeed, it was Donald Trump and his supporters who spent years making precisely that argument. They criticized previous agreements with Iran because they believed Tehran could not be trusted. They pointed to Iran’s long history of deception, sponsorship of terrorism, violations of international obligations, and hostility toward both the United States and Israel.
They were right.
That history did not disappear because diplomats signed a memorandum.
The Islamic Republic remains the same regime that seized American hostages in 1979, created and armed Hezbollah, supported Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, financed militias across the Middle East, attacked international shipping, and repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction.
Its leaders have broken promises before.
Its proxies continue to threaten American and Israeli lives.
Its slogans have not changed.
Neither has its ideology.
As the father of a victim of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, I have no luxury of forgetting those facts. My daughter Alisa was murdered in 1995 by Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorists whose organization was funded and supported by Tehran. For families like mine, skepticism toward Iranian promises is not a political position. It is the product of lived experience.
That is why several provisions of the memorandum deserve closer scrutiny.
-Why are significant economic concessions being offered before a final agreement is completed?
-What happens if Iran violates its commitments?
-What verification mechanisms exist beyond Iran’s own assurances?
-What restrictions will ultimately govern enrichment activities?
-What penalties automatically return if Iran cheats?
-g;'Most importantly, why should anyone believe that a regime which ignored its obligations for nearly half a century has suddenly become trustworthy?
These are not partisan questions.
They are not anti-Trump questions.
They are not anti-diplomacy questions.
They are the questions responsible citizens should ask whenever governments negotiate with adversaries whose conduct has consistently contradicted their promises.
There is another issue that deserves attention:567
Israel is not a client state.
It is not a protectorate. It is not a banana republic expected to nod politely while others determine its future. Successive Israeli governments, whether led by Labor, Likud, or national unity coalitions, have defended Israel’s right to make its own security judgments.
Friends may disagree.
Allies often do.
But Israelis have earned the right to voice concerns about agreements with the regime that finances the organizations seeking their destruction.
Those concerns should not be dismissed as inconvenient or disloyal.
They should be taken seriously.
Perhaps this memorandum will ultimately lead to a stronger and more comprehensive agreement. Perhaps it will reduce tensions and make the region safer.
Everyone should hope so.
But hope is not policy.
Verification is policy.
Accountability is policy.
Learning from history is policy.
The administration asked the public to wait until the document became available before judging it.
Now the document is available.
The questions begin where the memorandum ends.