Trump chose oil prices over Netanyahu’s Iran strategy - Israel Hayom analysis

An analysis in Israel Hayom argues that the US-Iran agreement may be neither a historic breakthrough nor the strategic catastrophe many Israeli critics describe, but a temporary arrangement shaped above all by Donald Trump’s fear of an energy crisis before the US midterm elections.

Amit Segal, citing a senior source familiar with Israel-US relations, wrote that Trump avoided the most forceful options against Iran – a ground operation to remove enriched uranium or strikes on energy facilities – because either could have triggered a spike in oil prices, inflation and political damage at home.

The analysis says the agreement should be understood less as a nuclear deal than as a Hormuz deal. Its main purpose, according to the argument, is to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and prevent a global energy shock before the elections.

But the piece also says the deal contains two elements that may be less favorable to Tehran than they appear. First, sanctions relief is described as temporary and limited, not a permanent lifting of pressure. Second, the analysis says Iran has committed to freezing its nuclear program, a point the source described as important because without a deal or war, Tehran could have continued advancing.

The article argued that Iran’s economic damage from the war remains severe, with estimates ranging from hundreds of billions of dollars to as much as a trillion, while the benefits of the agreement would only ease a small part of that pressure.

On Lebanon, the analysis says Israel has no quick way to dismantle Hezbollah without either conquering all of Lebanon or seeing Iran collapse. The more realistic strategy, it argues, is deterrence: preserving US backing, preventing fire into Israel and operating against Hezbollah’s rebuilding in a southern security zone.