The US and Iran have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and the Israeli public is trying to understand what it means and where we are going. "Globes" spoke to Meir Ben-Shabbat, head of the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, who served as head of Israel’s National Security Council from 2017-2021.
How bad is the agreement for Israel? How does it compare to the Obama agreement? "Firstly this is an MOU, which is essentially a temporary agreement for an interim period during which there will be in-depth discussions, and not a final agreement. The issues, especially the nuclear issue, have not yet been agreed on, and therefore it is not possible to compare it to the Obama agreement - we can only do so after the final agreement.
"But even without waiting for the final agreement, what has already been agreed upon is enough to substantiate the concerns in Jerusalem," Ben-Shabbat adds. "Firstly, an agreement with Iran - and this is true of any agreement - grants legitimacy to the extremist regime and gives it the most important thing for it: survival, hope and resources for reconstruction."
Secondly, Ben-Shabbat explains, "The MOU about to be signed heralds the beginning of the end of the severe economic hardship in Iran. As you may recall, it was this hardship that brought the masses of citizens out to protests and fueled the internal threat to the survival of the regime."
Ben-Shabbat continues, "The MOU that has been agreed on will inject billions of dollars into the Iranian regime at the very beginning of the process and additional billions during its implementation. This is in addition to the revenue that the Iranians are expected to obtain following the opening of the Strait of Hormuz for Iranian oil exports."
"Lebanon's inclusion in the agreement is a gift to Iran"
Are there other reasons to be concerned?
"The inclusion of the Lebanese front in the framework of the agreement is a gift given to Iran," Ben-Shabbat declares. "Not only will it guarantee immunity to Hezbollah, its most important proxy organization, but it will also receive recognition of its status as a player in the Lebanese arena. If the expectation was to dismantle Iran's grip on its proxy organizations, this agreement has come and is actually tightening it. And this at a time when the government of General Joseph Aoun is making new noises and desperately needs to remove this stifling patronage of the Ayatollahs' regime."
"And not only that," says Ben-Shabbat, "as far as is known, the agreement makes no reference to the issue of ballistic missiles. As we recall, Iran's moves in this regard have created a strategic threat not only to its neighbors and the countries of the Middle East, but also to Europe."
Ben-Shabbat also notes the postponement of the discussions on nuclear issues. According to him, "nuclear issues will only be discussed at a later stage, when the regime in Tehran will no longer be in its current predicament, and when the effectiveness of the US's military and economic pressure levers will be lower, if at all.
"If today, four months before the US midterm elections, President Donald Trump refrains from renewing hostilities, it can be estimated that at the end of the 60 days, when the time until these elections will be shorter, he will hesitate even more in this regard. Tehran knows this too, and therefore they will not rush to reach conclusions on the already complex issues on the nuclear issue."
Ben-Shabbat stresses, "The order of things set out in the MOU means the US is paying Iran in cash and receiving in return a deferred check whose details are unclear, and it is doubtful whether it will be covered."
How will the agreement affect the regional situation?
"Trump has entered the MOU with Iran when he appears to the entire world as someone eager to reach an agreement at almost any cost. This is seen by both the US's rivals and the leaders of the countries in the Middle East. The reports of rapprochement with Iran by certain countries in the region are evidence of their leaders' understanding that the US does not intend to finish the job, and that it is advisable to create an alternative security net. There is no doubt that Washington's conduct around the agreement will project weakness and affect the US's status in the Middle East, and not only there."
According to Ben-Shabbat, "To this must be added the feeling of betrayal on the part of the regime's opponents in Iran, who risked their lives, paid a high price, and are still waiting for that 'green light' promised by the US president as part of the efforts to overthrow the regime. One can only guess what this does to the credibility of the Trump administration."
"I am not involved in the discussions and deliberations that accompanied the political echelon in Israel, but in my opinion Netanyahu had no option but to respond to the actions carried out by Hezbollah against the northern settlements. It is impossible to accept President Trump's statement that restraint should have been exercised because there were no casualties. He himself acted differently when it came to attempts to harm civilians, soldiers, or US interests, even when there were no casualties. Furthermore, restraint on the part of Israel would have established the equation that Iran tried to impose on us in Lebanon."
"The Iranian regime is being given a lifeline"
What is the most dangerous thing for us in the agreement with Iran?
"The overall picture is more important than the details. The overall picture is that the extremist regime in Iran is being given a lifeline and conditions to strengthen its position and restore its capabilities, and this is when the military successes achieved against it could have led the US to reach an incomparably better result."
What is expected in Lebanon following the agreement?
"Israel will have to do the right thing for its security. Without defiance and without arguments, but with actions," says Ben-Shabbat and does not elaborate.
Will Iran really give up nuclear weapons?
"The Iranians look at things in different time frames than the West. The regime in Tehran does not have terms of office, and it does not need to be re-elected every time. Therefore, I estimate that at least in the short period after the agreement is signed, they will restrain themselves. How long will this last? Whether by the end of Trump's term or before - I don't know, but it is possible to estimate that the Iranians will not give up nuclear weapons. They will recognize this more than before as an indispensable necessity to prevent future attempts to overthrow the regime by force."
In retrospect, was it right to go to war in March?
"Yes. The political agreement to end the war is jarring and worrying, but it does not negate the many achievements that were made during it. The world and the countries of the region were given a demonstration of purpose not only regarding Israel's capabilities, but also its courage, determination and united stance in the prolonged efforts to remove an existential threat. Israel made it clear that it will not allow the construction of an existential threat against it. This cannot be made clear just by talking."
Published by Globes, Israel business news - en.globes.co.il - on June 15, 2026.
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd., 2026.