A deal in 'dire straits'? Israel's former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert talks to France 24

Key Concepts

• 14-Point Memorandum of Understanding (MoU): An interim 60-day peace agreement between the U.S. and Iran.
• Strait of Hormuz: A critical maritime chokepoint for global oil transit, currently subject to closure threats by Iran.
• Dislinkage: The diplomatic challenge of separating the Iran-Israel conflict from the Hezbollah-Lebanon conflict.
• Gordian Knot: A metaphor used to describe the complex, seemingly unsolvable entanglement of regional military and diplomatic interests.
• Messianic Extremism: A term used to describe the influence of far-right Israeli ministers (Ben-Gvir and Smotrich) on the Netanyahu government.
• JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action): The 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, canceled by the U.S. in 2018.
• Proxy Warfare: The use of groups like Hezbollah by Iran to maintain regional instability.

---

1. Status of the 14-Point Memorandum

The peace agreement, signed at the Palace of Versailles, is showing signs of collapse just three days after its inception.

• Strait of Hormuz: Point 5 of the agreement mandates safe, free passage for commercial vessels. Iran has officially declared the Strait closed, citing a "breach of promise" by the "enemy" (Israel/U.S.).
• Military Operations: Point 1 of the pact requires the immediate termination of military operations. Iran claims Israel violated this via continued airstrikes in Lebanon, resulting in at least 83 deaths. Israel maintains it is responding to ongoing Hezbollah aggression, including a drone strike that killed four Israeli soldiers.
• U.S. Stance: Vice President J.D. Vance denies the agreement is failing, asserting that the Strait remains open and that he expects to attend upcoming talks in Lake Lucerne.

2. Perspectives on the Israel-U.S. Relationship

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert provided a critical analysis of the current geopolitical climate:

• U.S. Leverage: J.D. Vance emphasized that the U.S. is Israel’s only remaining ally and that 2/3 of Israel’s defensive weaponry is American-funded. He warned that Israel must align with U.S. policy or face the consequences of President Trump’s "power of persuasion."
• Internal Israeli Politics: Olmert argues that the Netanyahu government is "manipulated" by extremist partners (Ben-Gvir and Smotrich). He suggests that a turning point in U.S.-Israel relations is imminent if Netanyahu continues to resist American directives.
• Regime Change: Olmert dismissed President Trump’s earlier rhetoric regarding the collapse of the Iranian regime as a "fantasy," noting that the current agreement may actually strengthen the Iranian government by providing economic relief.

3. The Hezbollah and Lebanon Conflict

• The "Dislinkage" Problem: Olmert argues that the U.S. attempt to separate the Iran-Lebanon conflict from the broader agreement is a strategic error. He contends that Hezbollah cannot be neutralized without addressing its Iranian financial and military backing.
• Ground Operations: Olmert expressed skepticism regarding the necessity of Israeli ground operations in Lebanon, labeling them ineffective for long-term security.
• Proposed Framework: Instead of unilateral military action, Olmert advocates for a historic political agreement between the Israeli and Lebanese governments, potentially involving France, to jointly disarm Hezbollah.

4. Economic and Diplomatic Comparisons

• Financial Aid: The discussion touched on the $300 billion fund proposed for Iran under the new agreement. Critics, such as Ted Cruz, argue this provides resources to a regime committed to "Death to America." Conversely, some analysts suggest that opening Iran to American business could dilute the influence of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps).
• Comparison to JCPOA: While President Trump claims his deal is superior to the Obama-era JCPOA, Olmert notes that the success of the current deal depends entirely on whether it effectively halts uranium enrichment and forces a change in Iranian state behavior.

5. Synthesis and Conclusion

The current peace agreement is characterized by "diplomatic Whac-A-Mole," where technical disputes and ongoing military skirmishes threaten to invalidate the 14-point memorandum. The primary takeaway is that the agreement is currently fragile due to:

1. Conflicting Objectives: The U.S. seeks stability through economic engagement, while Iran continues to utilize proxies to maintain regional leverage.
2. Diplomatic Isolation: Israel faces increasing pressure from both the U.S. and European leaders (e.g., Jean-Yves Le Drian) to abandon military-only solutions.
3. Structural Weakness: The lack of a clear mechanism to address the Hezbollah threat or the status of Israeli troops in Southern Lebanon leaves the agreement vulnerable to immediate collapse.

Olmert concludes that while the 60-day window in Geneva offers a chance to "hammer out" these issues, the fundamental reliance on Iranian-backed proxies makes a lasting peace unlikely without a broader, more inclusive political settlement.