As details of U.S. President Donald Trump's new Iran framework agreement begin to emerge, Jewish organizations and policy experts said that questions remain whether its terms go far enough and if Tehran can be trusted to adhere to them.
"Whether or not this agreement succeeds lies in strict verification and intrusive enforcement," Daniel S. Mariaschin, CEO of B'nai B'rith International, told JNS.
"Given Iran's 47-year history of deceit and deception, its secretive nuclear program and its role as paymaster and armorer of terrorist proxies will mean that monitoring this agreement cannot be passive," Mariaschin said.
"Given that, nothing here should deny Israel the right to defend itself against any threats that may emanate from Hezbollah or any quarter," he told JNS.
The memorandum of understanding that Trump, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf signed electronically on Monday calls for the Strait of Hormuz to reopen gradually, the U.S. naval blockade on Iran to be lifted and a 60-day ceasefire period between Washington and Tehran, during which negotiations will occur.
Congressional Oversight and Nuclear Concerns
AIPAC stated on Monday that it "looks forward to learning the full details of the framework for these negotiations."
The U.S. Congress "will play a critical role" in reviewing any final agreement which "permanently and verifiably ends the regime's nuclear program—including the removal of all enriched uranium from Iran and the dismantlement of all enrichment sites," it said.
Some Iran analysts see the framework as a sign that Washington may be softening some of its earlier demands on Tehran's nuclear program.
"There are just lots of questions, and as the talks have gone on, it seems like the United States is walking back a lot of its initial demands," Andrea Stricker, deputy director and research fellow in the nonproliferation and biodefense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told JNS.
Enriched Uranium Stockpile Dispute
One area of concern, Stricker said, is the fate of Iran's enriched uranium stockpile.
Trump had previously insisted that the material be removed from Iran or destroyed, but more recent discussion of downblending—the process of mixing highly enriched uranium with natural or depleted uranium—raises questions about whether Tehran could be allowed to retain some enriched uranium inside the country.
"If you're downblending, you're essentially reducing the purity level, and there's no reason to do that in Iran unless the United States has caved on its demand that it be exported," she told JNS.
Stricker also questioned what it would mean for Iran to agree not to operate underground nuclear sites.
