分类： politics

For weeks, Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Mohammed Ghalibaf has held firm on one core demand: unfreezing billions of dollars in Iranian assets held abroad must serve as a confidence-building step — if not an outright precondition — for any new round of negotiations with the United States. Today, that demand is officially on the table, as the most high-stakes diplomatic push in recent years advances, with broad goals that include a long-term end to regional hostilities, the full reopening of the critical Strait of Hormuz shipping lane, and substantial curbs on Iran’s nuclear program.

Early this week, unconfirmed reports outlined a potential framework: the U.S. would release up to 25% of Iran’s globally frozen assets in exchange for Tehran surrendering 400 kilograms of enriched uranium and permanently shutting down key nuclear facilities. Both concessions are widely viewed as non-starters for Iran’s leadership, so Tehran has instead tabled a more modest request: immediate access to $10 billion of its own withheld funds. What is confirmed is that both Ghalibaf and Iran’s central bank governor traveled to Qatar on Monday to negotiate the release of $6 billion in Iranian assets that have been held by Doha since September 2023 — a development that many analysts see as a sign of a potential breakthrough in the long-stalemated talks.

Just one month ago, the White House ruled out any such asset release. But shifting political pressures have upended earlier positions. With U.S. gasoline prices surging to multi-month highs and Donald Trump’s public approval sliding amid the ongoing Israel-Gaza war, and growing pressure from U.S. Gulf Arab allies to de-escalate tensions, the on-the-ground calculus for Washington has changed dramatically.

For Tehran, the need to unlock these funds is urgent. Iran’s government estimates it is owed as much as $120 billion in oil revenues and other assets that have been frozen by foreign governments and global financial institutions, a direct consequence of sweeping U.S. sanctions imposed on the country since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. The 1996 Iran Sanctions Act expanded restrictions to third-party entities doing business with Tehran, while codifying a ban on Iran pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Starting in 2005, the U.S. imposed a steady stream of additional sanctions targeting individuals and companies accused of ties to alleged terrorist activity, effectively cutting Iran off from most global commerce.

U.S. sanctions not only bar U.S. persons and entities from doing business with Iran; they also block Iran from accessing the U.S.-dominated global financial system, which relies heavily on the U.S. dollar and U.S.-backed payment infrastructure including the SWIFT network. No meaningful relief came until the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the landmark nuclear agreement brokered under former President Barack Obama. Under that deal, Iran rolled back its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief that unlocked roughly $50 billion in frozen assets, followed by a $1.7 billion settlement the next year to resolve a decades-old legal dispute at the International Court of Justice over Iranian assets seized by the U.S. before the 1979 revolution.

That relief proved short-lived. In 2018, during his first term, Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. unilaterally from the JCPOA, designated the entire Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a foreign terrorist organization, and reimposed all previous sanctions, triggering the immediate re-freezing of Iranian assets held across international banks. Most of these assets are held in China and India, with smaller portions in Turkey and the U.S. One $6 billion fund, generated from Iranian oil sales to South Korea, was granted to Tehran as part of a 2023 prisoner swap brokered by the Biden administration, which saw five Iranian detainees released by the U.S. in exchange for five American citizens held by Iran. As part of that deal, the $6 billion was transferred to Qatari banks for restricted use by Iran.

Just two weeks after the transfer, the October 7 Hamas attacks on southern Israel upended the arrangement. Qatar suspended Iranian access to the funds over concerns about how Tehran might use the money, given its longstanding support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are currently at war with Israel. Now, that $6 billion fund could be released again as part of a broader new deal being negotiated with the second Trump administration.

Regional analysts have offered diverging views on the motivation behind the Qatari-led push. “It’s Qatari money,” Alex Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, explained during a public discussion panel on Monday. “Qatar is pushing this now because they’re telling Iran: you have to engage in this diplomacy. Even if the Americans don’t follow through on their end, you still get the money. That tells you just how high anxiety levels are across the Gulf region right now.”

Other U.S. security analysts are skeptical that any unfrozen funds will be directed toward civilian needs. “I’m not a fool here — the first money from any sanctions relief or unfreezing of assets is going to go to the IRGC,” retired U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan told the same panel.

Yet there are reasons to question that assessment, given the fragile state of Iran’s domestic economy. Top of the Iranian government’s priority list is almost certainly stabilizing the country’s domestic financial system, after the U.S.-backed collapse of a major Iranian bank in late 2023 sparked widespread popular unrest across the country. Tehran also may seek to use access to funds to shore up its public image, which has gained some traction among younger Western audiences on social media during the 40-day Israel-Gaza war, a conflict Tehran did not initiate. As early as March, two weeks into the U.S.-backed Israeli military campaign in Gaza, Tehran demanded economic and structural reparations for regional devastation as a core condition of any peace deal, a demand it reiterated in a formal peace proposal sent to the White House last week — the same proposal that forms the basis of the current negotiations.

After nearly three months of open regional conflict between the United States and Iran, diplomatic efforts have reached a critical turning point, with former US President Donald Trump confirming that a tentative framework agreement is “mostly finalized”. Should the deal cross the finish line, it would bring an immediate end to months of hostilities that have roiled global energy markets and raised fears of a wider regional war.

Global financial markets reacted swiftly to the news of a potential breakthrough on Monday morning, with investor sentiment driving a sharp 6% drop in Brent crude prices that pushed the benchmark down to $97 per barrel. While the full text of the proposed agreement remains under wraps, emerging details from anonymous US officials speaking to Axios have shed light on the phased approach being negotiated.

Under the draft terms, the first step would be a 60-day extended ceasefire between the two parties. During this temporary truce, the Strait of Hormuz – the critical chokepoint through which 20% of the world’s daily crude oil and liquified natural gas shipments pass – would be fully reopened to commercial traffic. No transit fees would be imposed by Iran, and Tehran would clear all naval mines it had placed in waters near the strait as a strategic pressure tactic. Once mine clearance is completed, the US would lift its recent naval blockade of Iranian ports, and Tehran would be allowed to resume oil exports for the two-month period, temporarily pausing some US sanctions to enable the sales. The unnamed US official noted that while the temporary export access would boost Iran’s economy, it would also help cool tight global energy markets and ease upward pressure on energy prices worldwide.

This 60-day window is intended for the two sides to negotiate long-term arrangements, including the highly contentious issue of Iran’s nuclear program. As part of broader talks aimed at a permanent ceasefire, Iran is demanding the immediate unfreezing of its sovereign assets held around the globe and permanent relief from crippling US economic sanctions. In response, US officials have stated that these major concessions will only be granted in exchange for “verifiable, tangible concessions” from Tehran on nuclear security.

The still-undrafted memorandum of understanding between the two countries is reported to include a proposed Iranian commitment to never pursue a nuclear weapons program, though there is currently no confirmation that Tehran has accepted this condition. The draft text also proposes negotiations on freezing Iran’s uranium enrichment activities and removing its existing stockpile of highly enriched uranium. A US official told The Washington Post that the two-month ceasefire period will be dedicated to ironing out the verification and implementation mechanism for a final nuclear agreement. However, an Iranian official pushed back on this framing, telling the Post the draft deal only includes a commitment to discuss nuclear issues at a later date, not a pre-negotiated agreement on the terms.

Over the weekend, Trump faced cross-partisan criticism from US lawmakers over both the ongoing conflict and the terms of the emerging deal. The former president pushed back forcefully against his detractors in a post on his social platform Truth Social, insisting he only negotiates successful agreements. “If I make a deal with Iran, it will be a good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama,” Trump wrote. “Don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about. Unlike those before me who should have solved this problem many years ago, I don’t make bad deals!”

By Monday, Trump struck a more optimistic tone, telling reporters negotiations are “proceeding nicely”. He also used the moment to push for an expansion of the Abraham Accords, the 2020 US-brokered normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states that he oversaw during his first term. Trump said he had spoken with leaders of multiple regional nations on Saturday about efforts to end the conflict with Iran, arguing that after US diplomatic work to resolve the crisis, all involved nations should join the accords. “After all the work done by the United States to try and pull this very complex puzzle together, it should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords,” he said. He listed the candidate nations as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkiye, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE (already an accords member), and Bahrain (also already a signatory). The original 2020 accords also included Morocco and Sudan, while Egypt and Jordan already hold established diplomatic relations with Israel.

Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei offered a more muted confirmation of progress on Monday, saying that Tehran and Washington had reached preliminary conclusions on several issues included in the draft memorandum of understanding. But he stressed that this progress should not be read as a sign an agreement is imminent. Baghaei clarified that Iran’s current negotiating priority is ending the ongoing conflict, not addressing nuclear questions. He also reiterated a longstanding Iranian complaint that inconsistent, shifting positions from US officials have consistently complicated efforts to reach a final deal.

A reported emerging US-Iran agreement to permanently end ongoing conflict has triggered sharp skepticism and deepening alarm across Israel, with political, military and security leaders warning that the proposed framework fails to address core Israeli national security priorities.

Early weekend reports outlined that the tentative deal centers on a 60-day preliminary ceasefire captured in a memorandum of understanding, with the draft text notably omitting any provisions targeting Iran’s controversial nuclear program. The preliminary scope of the agreement also calls for an end to hostilities across all regional fronts, including the ongoing conflict in Lebanon.

Cross-party criticism from U.S. lawmakers, ranging from Democratic members to hardline Republican hawks, has been mirrored by widespread condemnation from Israeli political analysts and security experts. Against this mounting backlash, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement Sunday confirming he had reached an understanding with U.S. President Donald Trump that any final, binding agreement with Iran must fully eliminate the nuclear threat posed by the regime. Netanyahu added that Trump had reaffirmed Israel’s sovereign right to self-defense against threats across all fronts, including Lebanon.

For his part, President Trump has moved to defend the ongoing negotiations in a post on his Truth Social platform. “If I make a deal with Iran, it will be a good and proper one, not like the one made by Obama,” he wrote, referencing the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement signed during the administration of former Democratic President Barack Obama. “I don’t make bad deals,” he added.

These public reassurances from both leaders have done little to ease concerns among Israeli journalists and military analysts, many of whom frame the emerging deal as a major political failure and strategic retreat for both the U.S. and Israeli governments.

Amos Harel, veteran military affairs commentator for leading Israeli left-leaning outlet Haaretz, argued Monday that any such deal would amount to a clear American capitulation to Iran, while also highlighting Israel’s eroding leverage within the Trump administration. Harel emphasized that the proposed framework falls drastically short of the explicit goals Netanyahu set when the conflict launched in late February, which included the full collapse of Iran’s ruling government and the complete dismantlement of the country’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Danny Citrinowicz, an Iran-focused researcher at Israel’s independent Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), echoed Harel’s critical assessment, noting that the architects of the joint military campaign “did not truly understand Iran”. “The enormous gap between the declarations made at the beginning of the campaign and the agreement that will likely bring it to an end illustrates its failure,” Citrinowicz said Monday. “This war proved that Benjamin Netanyahu’s strategy has collapsed.”

Fellow INSS researcher Raz Zimmt described the tentative agreement as “very problematic” for Israeli national interests, arguing that Iran has effectively succeeded in reshaping a new regional power order in its favor. “The one who blinked first was President Trump, not the Iranians,” Zimmt told Israeli public radio outlet 103FM.

Nahum Barnea, veteran prominent political columnist for leading Israeli tabloid Yedioth Ahronoth, wrote Monday that the emerging deal would mark a clear strategic defeat for both Israel and the United States. He noted that neither Netanyahu nor Trump “never imagined” that after nearly three months of conflict, Iran would emerge in a stronger regional position than it held before the war began. Barnea added that Israel is now “subject to the absolute authority of a capricious, hollow, desperate American president” and argued that while confronting Iran remains an existential challenge for Israel, “Netanyahu is the last person” capable of leading that effort.

This wave of domestic criticism comes alongside growing concern across Israel that the country’s political influence in Washington has diminished significantly in recent months. On Saturday, *The New York Times* reported that the Trump administration had largely sidelined Israeli officials from the direct negotiation process, despite Israel’s role as a core coalition partner in the military campaign against Iran.

A Sunday report from Haaretz added that senior Israeli security officials are deeply alarmed by the direction of the U.S.-Iran talks, and have privately warned that “Israeli interests were not taken into account throughout the negotiations”. According to the report, officials have expressed significant frustration that despite Israel’s direct participation in joint military action against Iran, the White House has refused to prioritize Israeli core security concerns in the negotiation text. Senior officials now fear that a final U.S.-Iran agreement could impose binding restrictions on Israel’s ability to conduct independent future military operations in both Lebanon and Gaza.

Leading Israeli news outlet Ynet also reported that senior Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officials view the proposed framework as “a bad agreement for Israel” and have expressed deep disappointment with the reported terms. The outlet noted that the IDF had already begun preparations for a renewed military campaign against Iran, and senior commanders believe the agreement will fall far short of meeting core strategic goals, potentially leaving Iran well positioned to advance to full nuclear weapons capability as a “nuclear threshold state”.

Even within Netanyahu’s own ruling Likud party, some lawmakers have acknowledged the gap between opening war aims and the emerging deal. David Bitan, a Likud member of the Knesset, acknowledged Monday that Israeli expectations at the start of the conflict had been unrealistically high. Even so, Bitan insisted that Israel had secured significant military gains during the 40-day active conflict phase. When asked about Iran’s remaining ballistic missile capabilities, Bitan said Israel would “have to deal with it again and again”, adding that he expects further rounds of military conflict with Iran to occur every two to three years going forward.

On May 19, a landmark vote unfolded at Germany’s University of Leipzig that marks a seismic shift in the national debate over academic collaboration with Israel. Nearly 700 gathered students voted almost unanimously to cut all formal institutional ties between their university and Israeli academic entities, citing allegations of Israeli genocide and systematic educational destruction in Gaza. This outcome carries unique weight given Leipzig’s long-standing reputation as the heart of Germany’s Antideutsche movement, a radical left tradition defined by militant anti-German nationalism and unwavering, vocal support for Israel rooted in anti-antisemitism commitments, where Antideutsche activists have regularly clashed with pro-Palestinian organizers for decades.

The resolution approved by students lays out three core demands: first, that the university officially recognize and condemn what students frame as the genocidal character of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, including the deliberate destruction of the Palestinian education system — a phenomenon widely termed scholasticide. Second, the university must terminate all existing cooperative agreements with Israeli higher education and research institutions. Finally, students insist the university refuse to participate in, promote, or publicize any joint activities or programs hosted or organized by Israeli academic bodies.

A collaborative report compiled by Leipzig students and staff alleges that the university’s existing partnerships directly enable what they call Israel’s genocide and repeated violations of international law. Current collaborations include extensive student exchange programs, active joint research initiatives, and formal partnerships with multiple Israeli institutions that have been linked to the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

“Leipzig University is completely open about its work with institutions that break international law,” one student who contributed to the report told Middle East Eye. The student laid out three justifications for cutting ties: moral, noting the universal justice of opposing genocide; ethical, arguing universities must uphold the values of life and education while rejecting human rights abuses and scholasticide; and legal, referencing the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion that confirms the illegality of aiding or abetting violations of universally binding erga omnes international law, including violations committed by Israeli educational institutions.

University administration moved preemptively to block the student assembly, rejecting the vote’s legitimacy. Ahead of the planned gathering, the institution withdrew its permission for students to use university-owned space for the assembly, and the university’s rector Professor Eva Ines Obergfell argued that the event was no longer a legitimate academic debate, but rather a partisan push that aimed to restrict academic freedom. The administration also claimed the assembly was improperly convened, noting it was not organized through the official student council leadership per institutional statutes, and that only around 1 percent of the university’s total student body attended.

These accusations were immediately rejected as baseless by the Leipzig Student Council. Per the student body’s own governing rules, a general assembly can be called via a public petition signed by at least 3 percent of the total student population. Organizers collected roughly 1,300 signatures, easily surpassing the required threshold to convene the assembly. Ultimately, students held the gathering in an outdoor university courtyard after being denied indoor space. “The signatures we collected make it clear that we as a student body want and need to participate in this critical discourse,” explained Alaska Krakor, a Student Council representative. “The general assembly as a direct democratic outlet for our position must be respected by university leadership.”

Leipzig is far from an outlier in Germany: almost every major higher education institution in the country maintains formal academic ties to Israel. In June 2025, the German Rectors’ Conference, the national umbrella group for all public and officially recognized German universities, issued a formal statement calling for the expansion and strengthening of academic and research partnerships with Israel. The statement was released in direct response to growing European calls to suspend the EU Association Agreement with Israel, the primary legal framework governing political and economic relations between the bloc and Israel. The conference asserted that Israeli universities and the broader Israeli academic community have long been a core liberal, democratic force in the Middle East, and a central pillar of balanced ethical and academic reflection on the regional conflict.

Student organizers emphasize that this vote breaks new ground even as past student council resolutions have backed academic boycotts of Israel. Unlike previous measures that were introduced as part of broader general assemblies, this vote came out of a general assembly specifically convened to address the question of institutional academic complicity in Gaza. Organizers with Students for Palestine Leipzig told Middle East Eye that the groundwork for the overwhelming vote was laid months earlier at the start of the academic year, when the group released the complicity report detailing the university’s Israeli partnerships. In the lead-up to the assembly, organizers held educational sessions to walk students through the report’s findings and explain the rationale for an academic boycott, building broad support across the student body.

“We as students wanted to think globally and act locally,” the SFP Leipzig statement read. “Our university is complicit through its direct ties and cooperation with Israeli institutions that help develop weapons, manufacture bombs, and build knowledge that enables the oppression of Palestinians. We want no part in this complicity. We call on the university to respect the will of the student body.”