Writing for the conservative Washington Examiner newspaper, a scholar specializing in Middle East policy tore into President Donald Trump's new Iran deal, saying that it "takes Americans for fools" and calling it the "gravest blunder" of Trump's political career.After much hype and numerous failed starts, the U.S. and Iran signed a deal on Sunday to pause their ongoing conflict, reopening the Strait of Hormuz for oil shipments and giving the nations two more months to negotiate a final deal. While the actual full text of the deal has not yet been released, some of the details have already been reported to heavy criticism, including Iran potentially getting as much as $24 million in frozen assets returned to them. This particular stipulation led Miles Taylor, a former Homeland Security Chief of Staff in Trump's first term turned whistleblower, to say that the deal was "on track to be the worst deal in American diplomatic history."Further scathing criticism came on Monday from Jose Lev Alvarez, an American-Israeli policy scholar specializing in Middle Eastern security, who wrote about the deal for the Washington Examiner and pulled no punches, calling the deal "Obama 2.0, but more humiliating." "When President Donald Trump accepted the April 2026 ceasefire, I knew he had committed the gravest political blunder of his career," Alvarez wrote. "America and Israel had cornered Iran, shattered its leverage, and battered its proxies. Instead of forcing permanent concessions, the White House now appears ready to rescue Tehran and rebrand retreat as a 'peace crusade.'”He added: "This craven virtual surrender to the ayatollahs confirms my worst fears. Under this deal, Washington would reopen the Strait of Hormuz (now subject to Omani and Iranian supervision and tolls), lift the blockade on Iranian ports, grant temporary oil waivers, extend the ceasefire for 60 days, and defer the decisive nuclear questions to technical negotiations echoing Obama’s failed 2015 Vienna diplomacy."In exchange for those American wins, Alvarez noted that Iran will "supposedly" pledge not to build a nuclear bomb and halt further nuclear developments, with "deadlines, inspections, and enforcement mechanisms — the provisions separating a binding agreement from diplomatic theater," to be worked out later.All of this, he argued, amounted to "an American surrender by installment," instead of an Iranian "capitulation." He also reserved particular scorn for Vice President JD Vance and his part in negotiating the deal."Vice President JD Vance — the true architect of this disastrous agreement — initially dismissed reports of an Iranian payday as 'fake information,' insisting Tehran would receive no money merely for signing," he wrote. "That denial is semantic camouflage. The United States agrees to release $25 billion of Iran’s frozen assets in Qatar, including through direct cash transfers. Separately, the United Arab Emirates agreed to unlock — although it denies it publicly — up to $20 billion for Iran, with approximately $3 billion already delivered to Tehran. The route is irrelevant. The result is not. Through unfrozen assets, Gulf transfers, restored oil revenues, and renewed market access, Tehran will receive billions to replenish the regime that attacks Americans, bankrolls terrorists, and destabilizes the Middle East."He added later: "This would not be a battlefield defeat. It would be a defeat by choice — the pathology that converted tactical dominance in Vietnam and Afghanistan into strategic failure. Iran needs three things: time, money, and Western self-deception. This framework flawlessly delivers all three."
