Eyal Hulata: What’s next in the war against Iran

Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, issued a stern warning to the United States on July 7, 2026, stating that negotiations on a final deal would not begin if the U.S. continues its military threats. His remarks came in response to a recent public statement by U.S. President Donald Trump, during which he had vowed to either reach a deal with Iran or "finish the job" by taking further military action. Araghchi's message, posted on social media platform X, referenced Paragraph 13 of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the two nations earlier that year. According to the document, both countries agreed to initiate discussions on a comprehensive deal only after certain conditions—such as the implementation of a ceasefire, the lifting of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, and the waiver of sanctions—had been met. Araghchi emphasized that these prerequisites must be honored before any formal talks could proceed. The tensions escalated following a series of incidents in the Persian Gulf. In late June 2026, Iran launched attacks on civilian vessels passing through the strategic waterway of the Strait of Hormuz, prompting a retaliatory strike by U.S. forces. Days later, Iran deployed drones and rockets targeting infrastructure in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Jordan, further inflaming regional tensions. These actions were interpreted by some analysts as a demonstration of Iran's continued defiance despite the MoU, which had been intended to de-escalate hostilities. The U.S. response, including Trump's veiled threat, was seen as a challenge to Iran's position and a signal that Washington might not be willing to adhere strictly to the terms outlined in the agreement. Araghchi's warning was framed within the broader context of Iran's domestic political climate. During the mourning ceremonies for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, crowds had chanted slogans calling for retaliation against perceived aggressors, reflecting a strong nationalist sentiment among the population. The Iranian military, in a separate statement, reiterated its readiness to respond to any acts of aggression, emphasizing that it had taken steps to enhance its defensive capabilities during the ceasefire period. This stance underscored the perception among Iranian officials that external pressures, particularly from the U.S., were being used to undermine their national interests. From an Israeli perspective, the situation remains complex. Analysts such as Dr. Eyal Hulata, a former senior advisor in Israel’s national security apparatus, argue that while the Trump administration's MOU with Iran did not achieve its primary objectives, it still represented a significant shift in the balance of power. Hulata pointed out that the two air campaigns conducted by Israel against Iranian targets had effectively stalled Iran's nuclear program, although the regime's survival meant that the issue remained unresolved. He cautioned that without sustained pressure, including economic sanctions and intelligence operations, Iran could regain momentum. Additionally, Hulata highlighted the need for continued vigilance against Iran's growing missile arsenal, which poses a dual threat to both Israel and its neighboring Arab states. Looking ahead, the path forward appears uncertain. While the possibility of a final deal remains open, it hinges heavily on the willingness of both sides to meet the conditions set forth in the MoU. For Iran, achieving these concessions requires sustained external pressure, whereas for the U.S., maintaining leverage without provoking further escalation presents a delicate balancing act. Meanwhile, the region continues to grapple with the consequences of prolonged conflict, with the potential for renewed violence looming if diplomatic efforts fail to yield tangible results. As the situation unfolds, the stakes for all parties involved remain high, with the outcome potentially shaping the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East for years to come.