Playing a Dangerous Game

Anonymous sources suggest the United States and Iran are closing in on a one-page framework to end their conflict. Other, equally informed voices warn the U.S. may be getting drawn into yet another round of “kick the can down the road.” That possibility should be deeply concerning. Israel cannot afford a strategy built on delay, and the primary beneficiary would be Iran, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Reported terms include a mutual lifting of blockades in the Strait of Hormuz, in exchange for U.S. sanctions relief and an Iranian commitment to a 15-year moratorium on uranium enrichment. Iran would also agree to transfer its stockpile of highly enriched uranium beyond its borders, potentially to the United States.

Yet the core issue is credibility. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has described some of Iran’s top leaders as “insane”—a blunt assessment that raises serious doubts about the reliability of any commitments they make.

Ronald Reagan’s maxim, “trust but verify,” has long guided Western diplomacy. But applying it here may be dangerously naive. Critics point to an Islamic concept of taqiyya, often described as permitting Muslims to deceive under pressure, as a reason for heightened skepticism. In a deal of this magnitude, verification mechanisms alone may not be enough if trust is absent from the outset.