According to Tal Shalev writing at CNN, President Donald Trump gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu news nobody in Jerusalem wanted to hear in a bunker Sunday night: Washington and Tehran had reached a memorandum of understanding. From Shalev's piece:
The emerging accord is the scenario Israeli officials have spent weeks dreading: It could reopen the Strait of Hormuz and lead to the easing of economic sanctions on Tehran while delaying talks on the issues that were Israel’s declared war goals. The memorandum of understanding leaves for later discussion the thorny topics of Iran’s nuclear program and its ballistic missile arsenal, even as it offers economic respite to the regime Netanyahu wanted to topple.
When Netanyahu finally made public comments after Trump announced the memorandum of understanding, it was hours after other Israeli politicians had already spoken. In a press conference Monday evening, Netanyahu hardly mentioned the deal in his entire eight-minute opening statement.
Perhaps even more surprising is that he barely mentioned Trump in his opening remarks, instead of boasting about their relationship as he has regularly for years.
Her piece framed the call as the moment Netanyahu had feared, then leaned hard into the idea that Trump's diplomacy might leave Israel exposed, isolated, and boxed in by Iran's demands.
Fair enough, if the agreement's text proved it. So far, it doesn't, because the public hasn't seen the final text. Trump said Monday in Évian, France, that the agreement had been signed and that the Strait of Hormuz was partly open. He also said the text would likely come after Friday's formal signing in Geneva.
Vice President JD Vance said the deal had been digitally signed Sunday and that no funds had been released to Iran.
Vance also made the key points critics keep stepping around: Iran doesn't get money for showing up. Sanctions relief follows only if Tehran takes verified steps, including action on its highly enriched uranium stockpile and allowing the kind of verification needed to stop a nuclear weapon. The administration says the deal is based on performance, not trust.
CNN's seed of doubt comes through the Lebanese language. The piece notes that Iran wants a full Israeli military withdrawal from southern Lebanon, then says the agreement “may entail” new limits on Israel's ability to fight Hezbollah. From CNN, emphasis mine:
The agreement also may entail new restrictions on Israel’s ability to fight Hezbollah, as Iran is demanding a full Israeli military withdrawal from southern Lebanon, something Israel has said it is unwilling to do.
On Monday, a senior US official told reporters that withdrawal “was not a condition of the deal.”
“If Iran is not able to control Hezbollah, and if they attack, you know, Israeli positions or Israeli towns, Israel will have the right to defend themselves and respond,” the official said.
Yet the same paragraph contains the line that cuts against the entire insinuation: a senior U.S. official said withdrawal “was not a condition of the deal.” The official added that if Iran can't control Hezbollah and Hezbollah attacks Israeli positions or towns, Israel can defend itself and respond.
To which I respond: DUH! Why the heck wouldn't they be able to defend themselves?
A separate account of the same U.S. briefing says the deal won't be a one-way ceasefire and repeats the same point: Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon isn't a condition. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has said Israel won't pull back from the land it holds in southern Lebanon, and Netanyahu said Israel will keep its freedom of action and security zone to protect its northern regions. From i24 News:
The second official also attributed Iran's willingness to negotiate to the degradation of its economy and military. “The significant damage from the war on their industrial base, on their military left them much weaker than they've ever been before,” the official said, adding that internal divisions within the Iranian government had also created pressure to engage.
On sanctions relief, the officials pushed back on comparisons to the 2015 JCPOA, stressing that financial access would be strictly performance-based. “We don't pay for play,” the second official said. “You can't give them access to their funds if they're just going to use that money to fund terrorists.”
Criticism of any Iran deal is fair: Iran lies, funds terror, arms killers, and treats diplomacy as a battlefield with better lighting. Israel has every reason to watch the fine print with a soldier's eye. A deal with Tehran deserves suspicion until enforcement proves otherwise.
Suspicion, though, isn't evidence. A demand from Iran isn't the same as an American concession. A fear in Jerusalem isn't the same as betrayal in Washington. A framework with missing details shouldn't be turned into a verdict before the ink is even public.
Trump has been the strongest advocate Israel has had in the Oval Office in modern times. He moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem in his first term, backed the Abraham Accords, and has stood closer to Israel's security concerns than any recent president.
Disagreement between allies doesn't erase the alliance; is tests whether leaders can defend shared goals without pretending every tactical decision is identical.
Netanyahu doesn't have to like the deal; Katz doesn't have to trust Iran; Israelis don't have to smile while Washington tries to lock Tehran into a ceasefire; but readers, even those reading CNN's website, deserve the difference between confirmed terms and political fog.
The confirmed terms say no automatic payout, no public text yet, no Israeli withdrawal condition, and no waiver of Israel's right to respond if Hezbollah attacks.
Reuters, unsurprisingly, hopped on the rift bandwagon by rolling out an Obama-era ambassador for his opinion.
Netanyahu said that Israel has emerged “strong and steady,” with a leadership that stands firm and wise. At a press conference in Jerusalem late on Monday, he acknowledged that he and Trump have sometimes had their differences.
“He is the president of the United States; I am the prime minister of Israel. We many times see eye-to-eye, and there are times when we see eye-to-eye less so. I am in charge of Israel's security interests,” Netanyahu said.
Netanyahu, facing autumn elections he is projected to lose, may be more willing to defy Trump as he contends with an Israeli public that opinion polls show has grown skeptical of the U.S. president's commitment to Israel's security.
“This is a pretty stark moment of divergence of interests,” said Dan Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel under the Obama administration, now with the Atlantic Council think tank.
“He will try to not openly oppose (the deal), so as not to get into a brawl with Trump,” said Shapiro. “But he will indicate Israel is not bound by it, and Israel reserves its rights.”
The two columns basically shared the same phrase: “All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly.”
Surprised?
Shalev's real move is softer than an accusation and harder to rebut than a fact. It plants the idea that Trump may have sold out Israel, then backs away behind “may” and “could.”
Objective readers should notice the hedge; a fair writer should, too.
Peace deals can fail; Iran can cheat; Hezbollah can fire; and Trump may have to prove every word with steel behind it. But planting a U.S.-Israel split before the agreement is public doesn't clarify the story; it clouds it.
For now, the facts support caution, not panic, and scrutiny. And definitely not a prewritten betrayal narrative.
Want more honest conservative reporting and commentary without the media fog machine? Join PJ Media VIP today and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off. Your support keeps independent voices in the fight when the corporate press tries to turn every Trump move into a scandal.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member