Before condemnation or celebration, we need patience - opinion

Some view it as a dangerous concession to a regime that has spent nearly half a century exporting terrorism and seeking regional domination. Others see it as a diplomatic breakthrough that could prevent another major war in the Middle East.

At this stage, neither conclusion is justified.

The reality is that the details remain incomplete, the language released thus far appears deliberately broad, and the final contours of any agreement have yet to be fully explained.

That is precisely why Jewish communal leaders, pro-Israel advocates, and Israeli politicians should resist the temptation to either celebrate or condemn the agreement before the full picture emerges.

Skepticism is entirely warranted. Iran has earned that skepticism through decades of deception, violations, proxy warfare, and outright hostility toward both Israel and the US. Yet skepticism should not be confused with premature judgment.

For now, patience is the wiser course.

While commentators will inevitably frame every development through the lens of their relationship, the decisions being made today will shape the future of the Middle East, the stability of the international system, and the strength of the global terrorist network that Iran has spent decades building.

These are strategic questions, not personal ones. If the Iranian regime remains capable of developing nuclear weapons, then Israel’s position should remain unchanged.

No Israeli government can outsource its security to any foreign power, regardless of how close the alliance may be. If diplomacy ultimately fails and Iran remains on a path toward nuclear capability, Israel should retain both the right and the obligation to eliminate that threat.

The survival of the Jewish state cannot depend on promises, intentions, or unenforceable guarantees. At the same time, it would be irresponsible to reject a diplomatic process before it has had an opportunity to succeed.

The doctrine of “peace through strength” has guided much of the Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy. Critics argue that insufficient pressure has been applied to fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and perhaps they are right.

However, if the United States has created a framework that could permanently remove the nuclear threat through verification and enforcement, it deserves the chance to prove itself.

History suggests that the greatest challenge may not come from Washington but from Tehran. As former foreign minister Abba Eban famously observed about the Palestinians, “They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Iran’s leadership has repeatedly demonstrated a remarkable ability to undermine diplomatic openings through provocation, violations, and bad-faith interpretations of agreements.

If this memorandum ultimately collapses, many observers believe it is more likely to be because Tehran once again chooses confrontation over compromise.

That possibility should also inform how Israel and the Jewish world respond today.

When that happens, it will almost certainly be presented as retaliation for Israeli actions, including the targeted elimination of terrorist leaders.

Such narratives should surprise no one. The Iranian regime and its proxies have consistently portrayed aggression as self-defense and terrorism as resistance.

The likelihood of future violations is precisely why final judgments about the agreement should be reserved until we see how Iran and its regional proxies actually behave.

There is also an undeniable political dimension to these negotiations.

With American midterm elections approaching, every major foreign policy decision carries domestic implications. Yet reducing the agreement solely to electoral calculations risks misunderstanding the dynamics at work.

Trump has built his political identity around strength, leverage, and winning.

Those who know his negotiating style understand that he rarely views agreements as endpoints. Rather, he sees them as instruments to achieve larger strategic objectives.

Whether one supports or opposes him politically, it is difficult to argue that he has suddenly become naive about the nature of the Iranian regime.

Indeed, Trump himself recently reminded the world that “the radical and barbaric persons who have ruled over Iran for the past 47 years are very dishonorable people to deal with.”

That statement captures the central paradox many supporters of a more robust policy are struggling to understand. If the regime is so dishonest, why pursue an agreement at all?

The answer may be that diplomacy and pressure are not mutually exclusive.

A negotiator can simultaneously distrust his counterpart while creating conditions under which failure becomes unmistakably attributable to that counterpart.

If Iran violates the terms, evades inspections, or continues its nuclear activities, the US will be able to demonstrate that it pursued every available diplomatic avenue before considering more forceful options.

That matters strategically and diplomatically.

It is also important that supporters of Israel avoid overreacting to temporary disagreements between Jerusalem and Washington.

The US-Israel alliance has always been strongest when it transcends individual leaders. Trump’s responsibility is to advance American interests, while Netanyahu’s responsibility is to advance Israeli interests. The fact that their priorities may not always align perfectly does not mean either leader is acting against the other.

Friends can disagree without becoming adversaries.

The coming weeks will reveal whether this memorandum is the foundation of a meaningful agreement or merely another chapter in Iran’s long history of delay and deception.

Until then, caution should guide our response.

The Iranian regime has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot be trusted. That reality has not changed, but neither should we abandon a process before its terms are known and its results tested.

If the final agreement contains effective, enforceable mechanisms that permanently eliminate the nuclear threat, it will deserve serious consideration. If it does not, Israel must reserve the right to act decisively in its own defense.

Until that moment arrives, restraint is not weakness; it is prudence. And in a region where emotions often outrun facts, prudence remains one of the most valuable strategic assets of all.