Jacob Nagel is right about the danger.

The question is whether he is right about the strategy.

No serious observer should confuse an Iranian signature with Iranian surrender. Tehran has mastered delay, ambiguity, propaganda, and the art of turning negotiations into breathing room. Any agreement that gives Iran money, time, or legitimacy without dismantling the machinery of nuclear breakout would be dangerous.

Nagel’s warning deserves to be taken seriously. But his alternative assumes that maximum pressure would continue degrading Iran’s capabilities at an acceptable cost. Trump appears to be making a different calculation: pressure is not the objective. Compliance is.

That calculation is now being tested.

The agreement is no longer theoretical. According to The New York Times, the United States and Iran have announced a memorandum of understanding that halts fighting for 60 days, reopens the Strait of Hormuz, lifts the U.S. naval blockade, and leaves the most difficult nuclear questions for a new round of talks.

That is the difference between Trump’s Iran framework and Obama’s JCPOA.

The JCPOA asked whether time, inspections, and incentives could manage Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump’s framework asks a harder question: after seeing American force, will Iran submit to terms that actually reduce the threat?

Israelis do not debate Iran in the abstract. For three decades, they have heard Iranian leaders call for their destruction while financing Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, and other forces committed to Israel’s isolation or annihilation. Skepticism is not paranoia. It is experience.

So no, Israel........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)