[The Arabs’] objections are… the agreement strengthens Iran, weakens America’s credibility, ignores Tehran’s regional proxies, and leaves America’s allies vulnerable. “Trump and JD Vance are the Only Fans of the Islamic regime in Iran. Trump promised America First but delivered MIGA: Make Iran’s Regime Great Again.
In this MOU, America’s credibility was seated at the kids’ table while the mullahs got the VIP lounge…. It looks like date night with a regime that has spent decades spreading war and misery across the Middle East.” — Amjad Taha, Emirati journalist, X, June 20, 2026.
“America is free to pursue its own interests with Iran in Geneva. But it has no right to impose its decisions, laws, or interests on behalf of or upon any state or people in the Middle East, including Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and others…. We understand the demons of the Middle East just as well as Trump understands the hotels of New York.” — Amjad Taha, X, June 20, 2026.
“To Trump: In the Middle East, loyalty is currency. If you abandon your closest friend halfway through a fight and cut deals behind their back while leaving them exposed, don’t expect anyone to trust your guarantees again. You told the world, ‘The U.S. and Israel carried out an operation against Iran,’ then walked away and left your ally standing alone. In the Middle East… [a] person who abandons an ally halfway and cuts deals behind their back is not someone you call in a crisis…. You can call it ‘America’s interests.’ We call it something else: leaving your friends in the storm. Before asking, ‘Why don’t they defend themselves?’ remember that countries like Israel did and are still doing so alone. And also remember that the UAE defended itself, struck back forcefully, and banned the Muslim Brotherhood. Many of your countries in the West did neither. The lesson is simple. If you can leave your closest friend exposed today, why should anyone trust your promises tomorrow?… [W]hen Iran strikes again, don’t assume the Middle East will dial Washington. People don’t call someone who might leak information to Turkey or cut a deal with Tehran while their friends are still under fire.” — Amjad Taha, X, June 18, 2026.
[M]any Arabs [fear] that the agreement does not restrain Iran, but instead rescues it.
Officials from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait reportedly resent being sidelined during the negotiations and complain that they were largely excluded from discussions that directly affect their security.
“[A]ccording to multiple officials in the region who spoke with MS NOW: The issue that posed the most immediate threat to Gulf security has largely been left untouched. Iran’s ballistic missile and drone programs — the very capabilities used to strike airports, energy infrastructure, ports and U.S. military bases across the region during the war — are absent from the agreement.” — MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) June 18, 2026.
“Vance’s theory is that the Iranian regime will discover, through the Marshall Plan-style economic bailout, that peace is its best option. Unfortunately, this echoes what former President Obama said after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In April 2015, he stated that the agreement would ‘strengthen the more moderate forces within Iran.’ Obama’s theory was quickly proven wrong as the Iranian regime tightened its grip on its citizens, taking advantage of its political victory and new money…” — Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, prominent Saudi former editor-in-chief of the newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, June 19, 2026.
“”What the agreement would mean in this case is implicit American recognition of it [Hezbollah] as a legitimate regional player, making any future pressure to designate it as a terrorist organization or disarm it virtually impossible. We must also remember that it would entrench the phenomenon of ‘states within states’ in Lebanon, as well as in Yemen, and would threaten Iraq if it were included in the agreement.” — Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, Asharq Al-Awsat, June 14, 2026.
If Hezbollah’s role becomes linked to an American-Iranian understanding, Lebanon risks remaining permanently hostage to Tehran’s regional agenda.
“Lebanon is a strategic card in Tehran’s hand, used to wage war against Israel through Lebanon and to prevent the establishment of a fully sovereign Lebanese state. More importantly, Tehran is determined to insert itself into any American-Israeli arrangement for the regional order… the Lebanese state cannot regain its sovereignty if military and security decisions remain in the hands of a force linked to Tehran.” — Raghida Dergham, Lebanese journalist, An Nahar, June 21, 2026.
While the deal addresses certain nuclear issues, it does not dismantle Hezbollah. It does not dismantle the Houthi militia in Yemen. It does not eliminate Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It does not end Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations and militias. It does not even end Iran’s uranium enrichment, its development of nuclear weapons, or its ballistic missile and drone programs.
Washington is distancing itself from its closest ally while accommodating one of its most determined enemies.
Against this backdrop, many Arabs, like many Israelis, view any agreement that leaves the Iranian regime and its proxy network intact not as a diplomatic breakthrough, but as a dangerous illusion.
The real question is not whether the agreement will temporarily reduce tensions. The real question is whether it will make the Middle East safer. Many Arabs increasingly believe the answer is no.
The prevailing narrative in much of the Western media is that opposition to US President Donald J. Trump’s new agreement with Iran comes primarily from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his supporters.
This narrative is false.
Many Arabs, including prominent Gulf analysts, academics, former officials, and Lebanese commentators, have publicly voiced concerns about the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and the Iranian regime. Their objections are strikingly similar to those expressed in Israel: the agreement strengthens Iran, weakens America’s credibility, ignores Tehran’s regional proxies, and leaves America’s allies vulnerable.
The concerns are especially pronounced in the Gulf states and Lebanon, where people have firsthand experience with Iran’s destabilizing activities.
Emirati political analyst Amjad Taha sharply criticized the agreement, writing in a June 17 X post: “Out of 8.3 billion people on Earth, only two seem to trust Iran: Trump and JD Vance.”
On June 20, he posted:
“Trump and JD Vance are the OnlyFans of the Islamic regime in Iran. Trump promised America First but delivered MIGA: Make Iran’s Regime Great Again. In this MOU, America’s credibility was seated at the kids’ table while the mullahs got the VIP lounge. And Geneva? It no longer looks like negotiations. It looks like date night with a regime that has spent decades spreading war and misery across the Middle East. Either this is diplomacy from another planet, or someone brought a magic wand to the negotiating table.”
In another post the same day, Taha commented:
“America is free to pursue its own interests with Iran in Geneva. But it has no right to impose its decisions, laws, or interests on behalf of or upon any state or people in the Middle East, including Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and others. In the Middle East, we know our devils. We knew that negotiating with Saddam Hussein would not stop him from invading Kuwait. We know that making peace with Al-Qaeda would not prevent 9/11. We know that giving Hamas territory would not stop another October 7. We understand the demons of the Middle East just as well as Trump understands the hotels of New York.”
On June 18, Taha criticized the Trump administration for abandoning its allies in the Middle East, including Israel:
“To Trump: In the Middle East, loyalty is currency. If you abandon your closest friend halfway through a fight and cut deals behind their back while leaving them exposed, don’t expect anyone to trust your guarantees again. You told the world, ‘The U.S. and Israel carried out an operation against Iran,’ then walked away and left your ally standing alone.
“In the Middle East, we don’t judge friends by speeches; we judge them by who stays when the missiles fly. A person who abandons an ally halfway and cuts deals behind their back is not someone you call in a crisis.
You will say it’s about American interests. Fine. But others also have interests, and they have memories. You can call it ‘America’s interests.’ We call it something else: leaving your friends in the storm.
“Before asking, ‘Why don’t they defend themselves?’ remember that countries like Israel did and are still doing so alone.
“And also remember that the UAE defended itself, struck back forcefully, and banned the Muslim Brotherhood. Many of your countries in the West did neither.
“The lesson is simple. If you can leave your closest friend exposed today, why should anyone trust your promises tomorrow? Maybe it’s time for the Middle East to start thinking about alternatives.
“And yes, when Iran strikes again, don’t assume the Middle East will dial Washington. People don’t call someone who might leak information to Turkey or cut a deal with Tehran while their friends are still under fire.”
Taha’s warning reflects widespread fear among many Arabs that the agreement does not restrain Iran, but instead rescues it.
Officials from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait reportedly resent being sidelined during the negotiations and complain that they were largely excluded from discussions that directly affect their security.
Many Gulf officials are particularly alarmed that the agreement fails to address Iran’s ballistic missile and drone programs.
According to MS NOW (formerly MSNBC):
“One senior official from the United Arab Emirates described the mood to MS NOW as ‘complete disappointment.’ The reason is simple, according to multiple officials in the region who spoke with MS NOW: The issue that posed the most immediate threat to Gulf security has largely been left untouched. Iran’s ballistic missile and drone programs — the very capabilities used to strike airports, energy infrastructure, ports and U.S. military bases across the region during the war — are absent from the agreement.”
Dr. Bader Al-Seif, a professor at Kuwait University, publicly questioned Washington’s commitment to its traditional Arab allies. The omission of missiles and drones from the agreement, he argued, suggests that the United States “doesn’t have our best interests in mind.”
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, a prominent Saudi media figure and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper, wrote on June 19 that the agreement rehabilitates the Tehran regime as a regional power:
“Vance’s theory is that the Iranian regime will discover, through the Marshall Plan-style economic bailout, that peace is its best option. Unfortunately, this echoes what former President Obama said after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In April 2015, he stated that the agreement would ‘strengthen the more moderate forces within Iran.’ Obama’s theory was quickly proven wrong as the Iranian regime tightened its grip on its citizens, taking advantage of its political victory and new money, and the Quds Force and Qassem Soleimani penetrated beyond the borders of his country, and militias poured into Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere.”
Al-Rashed pointed out that most of the funds Tehran will be able to access in the coming weeks will likely go first to bolstering the regime’s military capabilities, rather than helping Iran’s civilian population:
“The Iranian leadership fears the possibility of renewed war, and its political doctrine views Iran as a military power, dedicating all its resources to this strategy. Tehran’s new leadership will need huge sums to rebuild its defensive and offensive capabilities, using what it will obtain under the agreement from frozen funds and large oil sales at high prices.”
The concerns are perhaps even more pronounced in Lebanon, where many fear that the agreement effectively legitimizes Hezbollah’s status as an armed state within a state.
On June 14, Al-Rashed warned that the Iran deal would “entrench the legitimacy of militias such as Hezbollah.”
“What the agreement would mean in this case is implicit American recognition of it [Hezbollah] as a legitimate regional player, making any future pressure to designate it as a terrorist organization or disarm it virtually impossible. We must also remember that it would entrench the phenomenon of ‘states within states’ in Lebanon, as well as in Yemen, and would threaten Iraq if it were included in the agreement. The American negotiators may be aiming for appeasement and to buy time, confident that Iran will change, and that the proposed agreement will pave the way for a broader peace that ends numerous conflicts, not just opens the Strait of Hormuz. I am not certain of such a rapid change. The Iranian regime is deeply entrenched, and it will take time before we see it transform.”
If Hezbollah’s role becomes linked to an American-Iranian understanding, Lebanon risks remaining permanently hostage to Tehran’s regional agenda.
As Lebanese journalist Raghida Dergham noted:
“Lebanon is a strategic card in Tehran’s hand, used to wage war against Israel through Lebanon and to prevent the establishment of a fully sovereign Lebanese state. More importantly, Tehran is determined to insert itself into any American-Israeli arrangement for the regional order, confident in its ability to now rival Israel in its standing with Donald Trump.
“In other words, Iran does not want Lebanon outside of American-Iranian understandings because it believes that the Lebanese card grants it a negotiating position that transcends Lebanon’s own size. It uses Hezbollah not only to threaten Israel, but also to compete with Israel for influence with the United States.
“Whenever Washington needs to control the Lebanese front, ensure the success of Lebanese-Israeli negotiations, or guarantee an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, it turns to Tehran. Herein lies the essence of the Iranian game: to make itself an indispensable conduit for any arrangement in Lebanon, as well as any regional arrangement…. the Lebanese state cannot regain its sovereignty if military and security decisions remain in the hands of a force linked to Tehran.”
The broader regional concern is that the agreement leaves untouched the network of Iranian proxies that has been responsible for much of the Middle East’s instability over the past few decades.
While the deal addresses certain nuclear issues, it does not dismantle Hezbollah. It does not dismantle the Houthi militia in Yemen. It does not eliminate Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It does not end Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations and militias. It does not even end Iran’s uranium enrichment, its development of nuclear weapons, or its ballistic missile and drone programs.
Perhaps most troubling is the message the agreement sends throughout the region.
Iran and its proxies are already portraying the deal as a victory. The perception that Iran forced Washington into concessions no doubt emboldens jihadist groups that believe they have defeated both the United States and Israel.
The public friction between the Trump Administration and the Israeli government only reinforces that perception. Such disputes send a message to America’s enemies: Washington is distancing itself from its closest ally while accommodating one of its most determined enemies.
Against this backdrop, many Arabs, like many Israelis, view any agreement that leaves the Iranian regime and its proxy network intact not as a diplomatic breakthrough, but as a dangerous illusion.
The real question is not whether the agreement will temporarily reduce tensions. The real question is whether it will make the Middle East safer. Many Arabs increasingly believe the answer is no.
inyangenewseditor@gmail.comÂ
