Vance Defends Iran Nuclear Deal, Issues Blunt Warning to Israel Over Potential Consequences
The uncertainty surrounding the signing ceremony has added to the complexity of the situation, with the US and Iran having already agreed on the ceasefire terms. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government has expressed concerns about the potential consequences of the agreement on its territory, given Israel's refusal to withdraw its troops from southern Lebanon. Prime Minister Netanyahu's stance has been met with skepticism by the US administration, which has urged Israel to respect the terms of the agreement and work towards a peaceful resolution. As the 60-day clock ticks down, the international community is watching closely to see how the negotiations between the US and Iran will unfold, and whether the agreement will hold. The US has made it clear that it expects Iran to take concrete steps towards changing its behavior, but Iran's leverage in the negotiations remains significant, and it is unclear what concessions the US will be willing to make to secure a lasting peace.
Iran has emphasized that the US must ensure Israel's compliance with the agreement, a condition that has significant implications for the region. The prospect of the US investing in a rebuilding fund for Iran, although denied by President Trump, has drawn criticism from some Republican lawmakers.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has criticized NATO allies for their reluctance to join the US in its conflict with Iran, stating that their refusal has put US forces at risk. In a strongly worded address to NATO defense ministers, Hegseth described their stance as "shameful."
A key aspect of the preliminary deal between the US and Iran is the temporary lifting of US sanctions on Iranian oil. Contrary to claims that this is not a new benefit for Iran, the country will now be able to sell its oil at market prices to a broader range of buyers and receive payment in more favorable currencies. Although the removal of US sanctions will allow Iran's oil exports to return to pre-war levels, it is unlikely that the country will substantially increase its oil sales.
In a notable statement, Vance warned Israel that President Trump is its last remaining strong ally and that the US has played a crucial role in defending Israel against missile attacks. Vance emphasized that two-thirds of the missiles shot down over Israel were eliminated using US-produced weapons.
Regarding the upcoming negotiations with Iran, Vance expressed uncertainty about his travel plans to Switzerland, stating that while the plan is to proceed with technical negotiations over the weekend, the schedule is subject to change. This development comes after Iran's Foreign Ministry announced that the country's president had digitally signed the memorandum of understanding, potentially altering the plans for a signing ceremony in Switzerland.
President Trump signed the document for a second time on Wednesday, following his initial digital signature on Sunday. Vance, when questioned about classified intelligence estimates suggesting that Iran retains approximately 70 percent of its pre-war missile stockpile, downplayed the significance of the total number of missiles, emphasizing instead the state of Iran's missile launchers. However, despite the US efforts to degrade Iran's missile capacity, the country's ability to launch missiles remains a concern for its Gulf neighbors, who have urged the US to secure a peace deal.
As the US and Iran work towards a final agreement, Vance is expected to lead the US negotiating team. When asked about potential future regime change efforts, specifically regarding Cuba, Vance provided a vague response, emphasizing the importance of stability in the region. According to Trump's advisers, it is unlikely that the US will pursue
Senator Roger Wicker, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, expressed concern that the memorandum of understanding undermines the victories of Operation Epic Fury, contradicting the president's goals. He criticized the $300 billion fund for Iran's reconstruction, stating it surpasses the payoff under President Obama's 2015 deal.
Vance asserted that the administration is confident in its ability to temporarily lift sanctions on Iranian oil without congressional approval, citing an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. However, he emphasized that financial benefits will only be available to Iran if it complies fully and changes its behavior, despite the memorandum of understanding not explicitly stating this condition.
The White House planned to brief lawmakers on the deal, with Congress expected to receive a formal signed copy of the memorandum of understanding. When questioned about Iran's ballistic missiles, Vance stated that it's impossible to deny any country the right to maintain a self-defense capacity, prioritizing the prevention of regional chaos.
US intelligence estimates indicate that the destruction of Iran's ballistic missiles, a key war objective, has not been achieved. Vance suggested that it's worth attempting to change Iran's behavior, urging consideration of assessments from Gulf Arab states.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance highlighted the decline in gas prices and the increased oil volume passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon continued, despite the US-Iran deal's call for an end to hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. The omission of a provision on missiles and drones in the preliminary deal has left regional officials feeling frustrated, according to analysts.
Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, noted that Gulf nations didn't expect significant outcomes but are still disappointed. President Trump's recent statement that Iran should be allowed to have some ballistic missiles has added to concerns in the region.
The objective of the mission, according to a senior US official, was to deny Iran the ability to use ballistic missiles to threaten its neighbors, US bases, and presence in the region. Bader Al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University, expressed disappointment with the US, stating that excluding Iran's missiles and drones from the agreement shows that the US "doesn't have our best interests in mind." He believes Iran is already rebuilding its missile and drone capacities and will use the financial gains from the deal to acquire more weaponry.
The agreement allows the Department of Treasury to issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives. Without limits on Iran's missile and drone programs, Gulf countries may invest in air defense technology and increase diplomacy with Iran, according to Marc Sievers, a former senior American diplomat. Sievers noted that these are the primary options available to Gulf countries.
Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar, said Gulf governments may seek advice from Ukraine and South Korea on countering missiles and drones. Officials in the region are questioning whether they can rely on the US as a security guarantor, especially after the Trump administration ignored their warnings about going to war with Iran. Ibish stated that Gulf countries are exploring the idea of moving away from reliance on the US, but finding a replacement solution will take time.
In Iran, officials are presenting a united front over the preliminary agreement, following weeks of political infighting. Seyed Abbas Mousavi, a senior government official, said there are only a few critics and called Iran the "clear winner" of both the war and negotiations. Esmail Baghaei, the foreign ministry spokesman, compared diplomats' work to that of troops and urged Iranians to support them.
In contrast, divisions have opened up in Washington, with criticism from Republican party members. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticized NATO allies for their reluctance to assist in American strikes against Iran, suggesting that the Pentagon may reduce the number of troops in Europe. Hegseth repeated President Trump's description of NATO as a "paper tiger" and warned that US support to NATO would not be "a one-way street." He scolded allies for failing to increase defense spending and for resisting the use of European bases for attacks on Iran.
Hegseth's criticism of NATO allies has sparked concerns about the future of the alliance, with some members feeling that the US is abandoning its commitment to collective defense. NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, attempted to downplay the tensions, but the rift between the US and its European allies is becoming increasingly apparent.
The review of US troop presence in Europe, announced by Hegseth, is expected to have significant implications for the region's security landscape. The potential reduction of US aircraft and warships available for NATO operations could limit the alliance's ability to respond to emerging threats, including Russian aggression.
Meanwhile, in Israel, the reaction to the preliminary agreement with Iran has been one of shock and disappointment. Analysts and officials believe that the deal fails to address Israel's core concerns, including Iran's ballistic missile program and its support for proxy militias. The requirement for Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon has been particularly contentious, with many seeing it as a significant concession to Iran.
The Israeli government has been tight-lipped about the agreement, but officials have expressed concerns that it will embolden Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah and the Houthis. The deal's failure to address Iran's missile arsenal has been particularly galling for Israel, which has long seen the program as a major threat to its security.
As the details of the agreement continue to emerge, it is clear that the implications will be far-reaching, with potential consequences for the entire region. The US decision to reduce its military presence in Europe and its commitment to NATO has raised questions about the future of the alliance and the ability of European countries to defend themselves against emerging threats.
The financial windfall Iran is expected to receive from sanctions relief and reconstruction aid has raised concerns that it could be used to further develop its missile program and support its militia allies in the region. Iran's nuclear program, a key concern for Israel, was not addressed in the current agreement, with plans for future negotiations.
Yaakov Amidror, a former national security adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, criticized the agreement, stating it was a "bad deal" in which the US received only a "letter of intent" in return for significant concessions. David Horovitz, editor of The Times of Israel, described the agreement as a "catastrophic capitulation" in a recent opinion column. Nir Dvori, an analyst for Israel's Channel 12 News, likened the deal to a "diplomatic Oct. 7," a reference to a disastrous event for which Israel was unprepared.
Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the agreement briefly, stating that "additional challenges lie ahead" and emphasizing the need for calmness and a firm stance on security interests. He reiterated Israel's commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and vowed to restore security in the north, near the border with Lebanon. Netanyahu also stated that Israel would maintain its security zone in southern Lebanon as long as necessary.
Other Israeli officials attempted to put a positive spin on the agreement, with Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli suggesting that Netanyahu would be able to negotiate with the US to maintain its presence in Lebanon. However, others were more critical, with former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser Chuck Freilich stating that Iran had emerged stronger from the agreement and was now the regional hegemon. Freilich noted that Iran had successfully stood up to the US and could continue to develop its missile program without facing significant consequences.
The agreement has also led to a reevaluation of the US-Israel relationship, with many Israelis questioning the nature of President Trump's support for Israel. At the recent G7 summit, Trump publicly belittled Netanyahu, describing him as a "very small partner" in the relationship and suggesting that Israel would have been annihilated without US support. Trump also downplayed the threat posed by Iran's ballistic missiles, stating that it was fair for Iran to have missiles given that other countries in the region also possessed them.
The reaction in Israel has been intense, with many feeling a sense of betrayal and disappointment. Lawmaker Hanoch Milwidsky posted a video on social media in which
Ben-Dror Yemini, a columnist at Yediot Ahronot, Israel's largest newspaper, wrote that Netanyahu had led Israel into "the most severe collapse in its history." Yemini's comments reflected the widespread sentiment among Israelis that the recent agreement had compromised their country's security and interests.
Dahlia Scheindlin, an American-born Israeli pollster, noted that it was "slowly sinking in" for Israelis that Netanyahu had staked the entire U.S.-Israeli relationship on his personal bond with a president prone to "temper tantrums" over "simple slights." Scheindlin suggested that Netanyahu had attempted to employ the same strategic approach he had used with previous American presidents, but this time, it had not yielded the desired results.
Rafael Grossi, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, stated that with a preliminary deal signed between the U.S. and Iran to end the war, negotiations on a nuclear agreement were entering a decisive phase. The deal extends a cease-fire to allow negotiations on some contentious points, including Iran's nuclear program. Grossi emphasized that the International Atomic Energy Agency would only engage in a technically sound process and that the parties involved were committed to verifying the agreement.
Meanwhile, maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has been cautious, with six vessels passing through on Wednesday, including an oil tanker that was subject to sanctions. The number of ships was well below the recent rolling average, and it was down from 14 vessels that transited on Tuesday, according to Kpler, a maritime data company. Dimitris Ampatzidis, a maritime risk manager at Kpler, noted that shipping companies were being cautious since the United States and Iran signed a preliminary deal to end their war.
The Israeli military announced that it would remain in southern Lebanon to "remove threats and strengthen the defense of Israel's northern residents." The preliminary U.S.-Iranian agreement to end their conflict declared the "permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon," but Israeli officials have repeatedly said that the country had no plans to withdraw its forces. The Israeli military published a map of its "security zone" in southern Lebanon, which showed that Israel has pushed further into some areas since it was first announced in April.
China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, may be slower than other countries to increase imports after the Strait of Hormuz reopens. During the war, Chinese refiners cut imports by roughly a third and relied
The statement highlighted the complexities of international cooperation on sensitive issues, as European nations have often found themselves at odds with the United States over the use of military force. This disconnect has led to frustration among American policymakers, who feel that their allies are not pulling their weight in addressing common security threats. The divide has been particularly pronounced in the context of the Iran conflict, where the US has taken a more aggressive stance than many of its European partners. As a result, the US has had to navigate the situation largely on its own, with limited support from its traditional allies.
Iran has emphasized that the US must ensure Israel's compliance with the agreement, a condition that has significant implications for the region. The prospect of the US investing in a rebuilding fund for Iran, although denied by President Trump, has drawn criticism from some Republican lawmakers.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has criticized NATO allies for their reluctance to join the US in its conflict with Iran, stating that their refusal has put US forces at risk. In a strongly worded address to NATO defense ministers, Hegseth described their stance as "shameful."
A key aspect of the preliminary deal between the US and Iran is the temporary lifting of US sanctions on Iranian oil. Contrary to claims that this is not a new benefit for Iran, the country will now be able to sell its oil at market prices to a broader range of buyers and receive payment in more favorable currencies. Although the removal of US sanctions will allow Iran's oil exports to return to pre-war levels, it is unlikely that the country will substantially increase its oil sales.
In a notable statement, Vance warned Israel that President Trump is its last remaining strong ally and that the US has played a crucial role in defending Israel against missile attacks. Vance emphasized that two-thirds of the missiles shot down over Israel were eliminated using US-produced weapons.
Regarding the upcoming negotiations with Iran, Vance expressed uncertainty about his travel plans to Switzerland, stating that while the plan is to proceed with technical negotiations over the weekend, the schedule is subject to change. This development comes after Iran's Foreign Ministry announced that the country's president had digitally signed the memorandum of understanding, potentially altering the plans for a signing ceremony in Switzerland.
President Trump signed the document for a second time on Wednesday, following his initial digital signature on Sunday. Vance, when questioned about classified intelligence estimates suggesting that Iran retains approximately 70 percent of its pre-war missile stockpile, downplayed the significance of the total number of missiles, emphasizing instead the state of Iran's missile launchers. However, despite the US efforts to degrade Iran's missile capacity, the country's ability to launch missiles remains a concern for its Gulf neighbors, who have urged the US to secure a peace deal.
As the US and Iran work towards a final agreement, Vance is expected to lead the US negotiating team. When asked about potential future regime change efforts, specifically regarding Cuba, Vance provided a vague response, emphasizing the importance of stability in the region. According to Trump's advisers, it is unlikely that the US will pursue
Senator Roger Wicker, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, expressed concern that the memorandum of understanding undermines the victories of Operation Epic Fury, contradicting the president's goals. He criticized the $300 billion fund for Iran's reconstruction, stating it surpasses the payoff under President Obama's 2015 deal.
Vance asserted that the administration is confident in its ability to temporarily lift sanctions on Iranian oil without congressional approval, citing an opinion from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. However, he emphasized that financial benefits will only be available to Iran if it complies fully and changes its behavior, despite the memorandum of understanding not explicitly stating this condition.
The White House planned to brief lawmakers on the deal, with Congress expected to receive a formal signed copy of the memorandum of understanding. When questioned about Iran's ballistic missiles, Vance stated that it's impossible to deny any country the right to maintain a self-defense capacity, prioritizing the prevention of regional chaos.
US intelligence estimates indicate that the destruction of Iran's ballistic missiles, a key war objective, has not been achieved. Vance suggested that it's worth attempting to change Iran's behavior, urging consideration of assessments from Gulf Arab states.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance highlighted the decline in gas prices and the increased oil volume passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon continued, despite the US-Iran deal's call for an end to hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah. The omission of a provision on missiles and drones in the preliminary deal has left regional officials feeling frustrated, according to analysts.
Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute, noted that Gulf nations didn't expect significant outcomes but are still disappointed. President Trump's recent statement that Iran should be allowed to have some ballistic missiles has added to concerns in the region.
The objective of the mission, according to a senior US official, was to deny Iran the ability to use ballistic missiles to threaten its neighbors, US bases, and presence in the region. Bader Al-Saif, an assistant professor of history at Kuwait University, expressed disappointment with the US, stating that excluding Iran's missiles and drones from the agreement shows that the US "doesn't have our best interests in mind." He believes Iran is already rebuilding its missile and drone capacities and will use the financial gains from the deal to acquire more weaponry.
The agreement allows the Department of Treasury to issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives. Without limits on Iran's missile and drone programs, Gulf countries may invest in air defense technology and increase diplomacy with Iran, according to Marc Sievers, a former senior American diplomat. Sievers noted that these are the primary options available to Gulf countries.
Hussein Ibish, a senior resident scholar, said Gulf governments may seek advice from Ukraine and South Korea on countering missiles and drones. Officials in the region are questioning whether they can rely on the US as a security guarantor, especially after the Trump administration ignored their warnings about going to war with Iran. Ibish stated that Gulf countries are exploring the idea of moving away from reliance on the US, but finding a replacement solution will take time.
In Iran, officials are presenting a united front over the preliminary agreement, following weeks of political infighting. Seyed Abbas Mousavi, a senior government official, said there are only a few critics and called Iran the "clear winner" of both the war and negotiations. Esmail Baghaei, the foreign ministry spokesman, compared diplomats' work to that of troops and urged Iranians to support them.
In contrast, divisions have opened up in Washington, with criticism from Republican party members. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth criticized NATO allies for their reluctance to assist in American strikes against Iran, suggesting that the Pentagon may reduce the number of troops in Europe. Hegseth repeated President Trump's description of NATO as a "paper tiger" and warned that US support to NATO would not be "a one-way street." He scolded allies for failing to increase defense spending and for resisting the use of European bases for attacks on Iran.
Hegseth's criticism of NATO allies has sparked concerns about the future of the alliance, with some members feeling that the US is abandoning its commitment to collective defense. NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, attempted to downplay the tensions, but the rift between the US and its European allies is becoming increasingly apparent.
The review of US troop presence in Europe, announced by Hegseth, is expected to have significant implications for the region's security landscape. The potential reduction of US aircraft and warships available for NATO operations could limit the alliance's ability to respond to emerging threats, including Russian aggression.
Meanwhile, in Israel, the reaction to the preliminary agreement with Iran has been one of shock and disappointment. Analysts and officials believe that the deal fails to address Israel's core concerns, including Iran's ballistic missile program and its support for proxy militias. The requirement for Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon has been particularly contentious, with many seeing it as a significant concession to Iran.
The Israeli government has been tight-lipped about the agreement, but officials have expressed concerns that it will embolden Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah and the Houthis. The deal's failure to address Iran's missile arsenal has been particularly galling for Israel, which has long seen the program as a major threat to its security.
As the details of the agreement continue to emerge, it is clear that the implications will be far-reaching, with potential consequences for the entire region. The US decision to reduce its military presence in Europe and its commitment to NATO has raised questions about the future of the alliance and the ability of European countries to defend themselves against emerging threats.
The financial windfall Iran is expected to receive from sanctions relief and reconstruction aid has raised concerns that it could be used to further develop its missile program and support its militia allies in the region. Iran's nuclear program, a key concern for Israel, was not addressed in the current agreement, with plans for future negotiations.
Yaakov Amidror, a former national security adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, criticized the agreement, stating it was a "bad deal" in which the US received only a "letter of intent" in return for significant concessions. David Horovitz, editor of The Times of Israel, described the agreement as a "catastrophic capitulation" in a recent opinion column. Nir Dvori, an analyst for Israel's Channel 12 News, likened the deal to a "diplomatic Oct. 7," a reference to a disastrous event for which Israel was unprepared.
Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed the agreement briefly, stating that "additional challenges lie ahead" and emphasizing the need for calmness and a firm stance on security interests. He reiterated Israel's commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and vowed to restore security in the north, near the border with Lebanon. Netanyahu also stated that Israel would maintain its security zone in southern Lebanon as long as necessary.
Other Israeli officials attempted to put a positive spin on the agreement, with Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli suggesting that Netanyahu would be able to negotiate with the US to maintain its presence in Lebanon. However, others were more critical, with former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser Chuck Freilich stating that Iran had emerged stronger from the agreement and was now the regional hegemon. Freilich noted that Iran had successfully stood up to the US and could continue to develop its missile program without facing significant consequences.
The agreement has also led to a reevaluation of the US-Israel relationship, with many Israelis questioning the nature of President Trump's support for Israel. At the recent G7 summit, Trump publicly belittled Netanyahu, describing him as a "very small partner" in the relationship and suggesting that Israel would have been annihilated without US support. Trump also downplayed the threat posed by Iran's ballistic missiles, stating that it was fair for Iran to have missiles given that other countries in the region also possessed them.
The reaction in Israel has been intense, with many feeling a sense of betrayal and disappointment. Lawmaker Hanoch Milwidsky posted a video on social media in which
Ben-Dror Yemini, a columnist at Yediot Ahronot, Israel's largest newspaper, wrote that Netanyahu had led Israel into "the most severe collapse in its history." Yemini's comments reflected the widespread sentiment among Israelis that the recent agreement had compromised their country's security and interests.
Dahlia Scheindlin, an American-born Israeli pollster, noted that it was "slowly sinking in" for Israelis that Netanyahu had staked the entire U.S.-Israeli relationship on his personal bond with a president prone to "temper tantrums" over "simple slights." Scheindlin suggested that Netanyahu had attempted to employ the same strategic approach he had used with previous American presidents, but this time, it had not yielded the desired results.
Rafael Grossi, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, stated that with a preliminary deal signed between the U.S. and Iran to end the war, negotiations on a nuclear agreement were entering a decisive phase. The deal extends a cease-fire to allow negotiations on some contentious points, including Iran's nuclear program. Grossi emphasized that the International Atomic Energy Agency would only engage in a technically sound process and that the parties involved were committed to verifying the agreement.
Meanwhile, maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has been cautious, with six vessels passing through on Wednesday, including an oil tanker that was subject to sanctions. The number of ships was well below the recent rolling average, and it was down from 14 vessels that transited on Tuesday, according to Kpler, a maritime data company. Dimitris Ampatzidis, a maritime risk manager at Kpler, noted that shipping companies were being cautious since the United States and Iran signed a preliminary deal to end their war.
The Israeli military announced that it would remain in southern Lebanon to "remove threats and strengthen the defense of Israel's northern residents." The preliminary U.S.-Iranian agreement to end their conflict declared the "permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon," but Israeli officials have repeatedly said that the country had no plans to withdraw its forces. The Israeli military published a map of its "security zone" in southern Lebanon, which showed that Israel has pushed further into some areas since it was first announced in April.
China, the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, may be slower than other countries to increase imports after the Strait of Hormuz reopens. During the war, Chinese refiners cut imports by roughly a third and relied
The statement highlighted the complexities of international cooperation on sensitive issues, as European nations have often found themselves at odds with the United States over the use of military force. This disconnect has led to frustration among American policymakers, who feel that their allies are not pulling their weight in addressing common security threats. The divide has been particularly pronounced in the context of the Iran conflict, where the US has taken a more aggressive stance than many of its European partners. As a result, the US has had to navigate the situation largely on its own, with limited support from its traditional allies.
News, Global