War in the Middle East: Why is the Iran-United States agreement a “catastrophe seen from Israel”?

The news certainly had the effect of a cold shower in Tel Aviv. On Sunday night, the United States and Iran announced the framework of an agreement to end the war in the Middle East on all fronts, with a signing ceremony planned for Friday in Geneva. A few hours later, the Israeli response was scathing: Defense Minister Israel Katz affirmed that Israel would maintain its troops in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza for an indefinite period.

Because the content of this agreement, partially known but certain elements of which have circulated in the Iranian press, is not convincing. “It’s a catastrophe seen from Israel,” says Laure Foucher, senior researcher at the Foundation for Strategic Research. Israel wanted to avoid linking the two fronts [Iran et Liban]in order to maintain greater room for maneuver.” However, the agreement would establish a cease-fire in the south of the country, where the Israeli army is leading a campaign against Hezbollah.

A binding agreement for Israel, even though it did not negotiate it

The document also opens a 60-day diplomatic phase intended to resolve more thorny questions: the future of the Iranian nuclear program, the fate of stocks of highly enriched uranium, the gradual lifting of American sanctions. So many files which will remain open. This vagueness itself is a problem for Israel. “The agreement is very general, it does not cover many points, does not resolve the nuclear issue, does not address missiles or proxies [les groupes terroristes alignés sur l'Iran] », relève Laure Foucher.

On financial assets, the Iranian news agency Mehr reports a text providing for the release of 24 billion dollars of frozen Iranian assets. “This release of assets will also serve to strengthen Hezbollah and the Houthis,” assures Jean de Gliniasty, research director at IRIS and former consul general of France in Jerusalem. Above all, according to the Mehr agency, the agreement commits the United States not to start a new war or carry out new military operations, and this commitment would be made in the name of Israel. The Jewish state would therefore be bound by an agreement that it did not negotiate.

Between Trump and Netanyahu, it’s divorce

Behind the agreement lies a deeper shift in American policy, which has not included Israel in diplomatic exchanges. “Until now, the logic of the United States was to destroy and impose disarmament by force,” summarizes Jean de Gliniasty. Now, America is negotiating with a country dedicated to the destruction of Israel. » «The Trump-Netanyahu-Iran equation has changed, analyzes Laure Foucher. There were converging interests before the war; this agreement highlights divergences of interests and the diminishing influence of Benjamin Netanyahu over Donald Trump.” The Israeli head of government finds himself relegated to second place by his main ally: however, the United States remains, recalls Jean de Gliniasty, “the country which helps Israel the world”.

Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir was even more direct, asserting that Israel was not bound by the terms of the agreement: “The Trump agreement does not bind us… we are not part of this agreement.” Tel Aviv’s maneuvers are narrow. “There is a strategic disagreement but Israel has no choice,” recalls Jean de Gliniasty. The latter anticipates an end to the bombings, but not the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon.

All our articles on the conflict in Iran

Finally, for Laure Foucher, this agreement is also a personal failure for Benyamin Netanyahu, who wants to prepare for his re-election: “He will not be accused on his objectives, which are shared by the opposition parties, but on his failures.”