Trump’s Iran deal may be worse than Obama’s, former Netanyahu security adviser says - opinion

Overview

As the United States and Iran move closer to signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a former national security adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly warned that the emerging agreement may be worse than the 2015 nuclear deal brokered by the Obama administration. Writing in a Jerusalem Post opinion column, Jacob Nagel, who also served as head of Israel's National Security Council, argued the tentative accord is "hollow" and "completely detached from the core issues" — namely Iran's nuclear program and ballistic missile capabilities.

While the full text of the MOU has yet to be released, multiple reports indicate it would partially reopen the strategic Strait of Hormuz — a critical chokepoint for global oil shipments — and grant Iran some sanctions relief. The deal also reportedly includes a 60-day period to negotiate a final agreement on Iran's nuclear enrichment and uranium stockpiles.

Coverage Comparison

Both articles examined in this report come from the Jerusalem Post, an English-language Israeli publication, and both adopt a critical tone toward the emerging deal. The first, an opinion piece by Jacob Nagel published June 14, 2026, argues the agreement is a "catastrophe" driven primarily by US domestic political pressures, including concerns over fuel prices and the global economy. The second, a commentary by Liat Collins published June 19, 2026, describes the deal as a "headache" and highlights what she sees as fundamental flaws — including the decision to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and lift port blockades before Iran has demonstrated compliance on nuclear issues.

Both sources agree on the core facts: the MOU is nearing or has already been signed (Collins states it was signed and published on Wednesday, June 18), it includes a 60-day window for a final deal, and it provides Iran with economic benefits upfront. However, their framing differs slightly: Nagel emphasizes the strategic and political implications, while Collins focuses on the procedural and moral hazards of rewarding Iran before tangible progress is made.

Key Claims

• Approach of an MOU: According to Jacob Nagel, "we are approaching the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding" between the US and Iran. He cautions that until the document is released, its contents cannot be known with certainty — and that even then, undisclosed side agreements may emerge.

• Strait of Hormuz and sanctions: Multiple reports indicate the MOU will allow Iran to partially reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which has been a point of tension in recent months. The agreement also appears to include the removal of some US sanctions on Iran, as part of what critics describe as an attempt to ease pressure on global fuel markets.

• Nuclear and missile gaps: Both sources stress that the MOU does not fully address Iran's nuclear program or its ballistic missile capabilities. Nagel notes that while the Israeli-American campaign damaged portions of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, Iran may still seek nuclear weapons as an "insurance policy." Collins adds that the 60-day period for a final deal will focus on enrichment and stockpiles, but the outcome is far from assured.

• Criticism from Israel and others: Both articles report that the deal has drawn criticism from Israel and other countries. Last week, speaking to reporters during a G7 summit in France, President Trump defended the agreement, and several European leaders offered cautious support — but Collins wrote that "the devil lies in the details."

Perspectives

Israeli security establishment: Jacob Nagel, a former Netanyahu adviser, holds perhaps the most alarmist view, warning that the deal could be "worse than Obama's" 2015 agreement — one Israel had long criticized. He argues Iran's leadership, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, understands that only nuclear weapons can provide a true guarantee of survival, and he fears the current MOU does nothing to prevent that outcome.

Critics within Israeli media: Liat Collins represents a more broadly skeptical but less stark perspective. She focuses on the sequencing of the deal — reopening the Strait of Hormuz and lifting blockades before a final nuclear agreement is reached — and argues this rewards Iran for merely returning to the negotiating table.

Supporters (as relayed): Both articles acknowledge that President Trump and some European leaders see the MOU as a positive step, though their specific arguments are not detailed in the available text. The deal is presumably framed by its backers as a pragmatic move to lower global energy prices and open diplomatic channels.

Temporal Context

The two columns were published within days of each other (June 14 and June 19, 2026), straddling the reported signing of the MOU on June 18. As of the latest article, the MOU has been signed and published, and the 60-day negotiation window has begun. This article was written before the outcome of those negotiations could be known, so the final scope of the deal remains uncertain.