Israel - Iran ceasefire holds, new U.S. deal with Tehran, and the unclear fate of Iran's 400kgs of Highly Enriched Uranium.

• The ceasefire announced by Trump on Monday appears to be holding relatively well so far.

• Now, there have been some initial violations, with Iranians launching missiles and the Israeli side using this opportunity to conduct extensive bombing and engage in significant last-minute destruction of targets in Iran, which notably prompted severe backlash from Trump.

• On Tuesday, just before departing for a NATO summit in The Hague, Trump remarked that these two countries, Iran and Israel, have been fighting for so long that they “don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

• He expressed disappointment with both nations, especially Israel—a notable departure from previous presidential attitudes.

• This tone toward Israel (which caught many by surprise) could signify several underlying factors.

• First, it seems very likely that Trump is personally frustrated with Netanyahu, who has frequently irritated him.

• Their relationship has previously been strained, notably in 2020 when Netanyahu delayed progress on the Abraham Accords, resulting in criticism from Trump.

• Even before this recent episode, Trump and Netanyahu had a history of tension.

• More recently, prior to Iran’s strikes, Trump openly complained that Netanyahu was undermining negotiations by bombing Iran during talks.

• This frustration has been publicly acknowledged and previously discussed.

• The situation dramatically shifted after the onset of the “12-day war”, as Trump termed it.

• Initially, Trump, Rubio, and other U.S. leaders distanced themselves from Israeli operations.

• However, once it became apparent that Israel held the upper hand and was successful, Trump began using the term “we” to describe the operation, saying, “We control the airspace,” showing a clear desire to secure credit for the IDF’s success.

• At that point, Trump decided there had been sufficient degradation of air defenses, and he authorized bunker-buster bombs targeting Fordow and attack sites in Isfahan and Natanz.

• After these bombings, Trump briefly entertained the idea of regime change, signaling to Iran that he could escalate further if needed, before ultimately declaring a ceasefire and stating that both countries had agreed.

• Now, Netanyahu’s unilateral actions, contrary to Trump’s directives, are again causing friction.

• So then, part of Trump’s irritation undoubtedly stems from Netanyahu’s defiance.

• However, there are at least two additional reasons behind Trump’s recent criticisms of both Israel and Iran.

• First, by reprimanding both parties, Trump attempts to underscore his impartiality in enforcing the ceasefire.

• This impartial stance offers a face-saving measure for Iranians, allowing them to uphold the ceasefire without appearing coerced by a stronger ally of Israel.

• They can present it domestically as a neutral mediation rather than forced compliance, thus preserving dignity.

• Second, there’s a political dimension.

• For two weeks, Trump’s MAGA base has criticized him for seemingly doing “Netanyahu’s bidding” by engaging in Middle Eastern conflicts.

• Influential MAGA figures such as Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson accused Trump of being manipulated into war.

• By openly criticizing Israel and explicitly warning Israeli pilots against further bombings post-ceasefire, Trump demonstrates his autonomy from Israeli influence, portraying himself as using Israel strategically rather than being manipulated by them.

• This move reassures his base that he remains strong, independent, and unafraid to criticize Israel when necessary—unlike previous presidents who treated Israel with kid gloves.

The fate of 400kg HEU and what happens next.

• However, the critical question remains: what happens next?

• Even if the ceasefire holds, two fundamental questions must be addressed.

• Firstly, to what extent has Iran’s nuclear program been damaged?

• Secondly, is there potential for a new deal with Iran?

• Regarding the first question, even on Sunday, Vice President Vance acknowledged that 400 kg of highly enriched uranium remained intact and unaccounted for, without definitive evidence of its destruction or relocation.

• Satellite imagery revealed trucks lined up at Fordow facility shortly before the attacks, potentially indicating efforts to seal tunnels or transport uranium elsewhere.

• Israeli operatives reportedly verified site destruction post-strike (as suggested by Trump just today), yet uncertainty persists about the whereabouts of this material.

• Concerning the extent of actual damage, a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment, widely disseminated by CNN and The New York Times, indicated minimal facility damage, estimating only a setback to the nuclear program of several months ‘‘tops”.

• Notably, this DIA assessment was issued with “low confidence” just a day post-attack, lacking comprehensive intelligence gathering.

• Nevertheless, the memo’s widespread circulation drew criticism toward Trump’s administration.

• The administration reacted poorly, dismissing media coverage as “fake news,” overlooking the fact that the DIA falls under the jurisdiction of Trump’s own Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.

• Trump’s press secretary’s characterization of the memo-leaking official as a “loser” further exacerbated the controversy and internal friction: why would this admin let ‘‘losers’’ work at such an important office?

• Secretary Hegseth’s public dismissal of initial reports—claiming that assessing Fordow’s damage required a “big shovel”—raised logical inconsistencies, as this argument could similarly discredit claims of complete destruction.

• DNI chief Tulsi Gabbard further complicated matters, dismissing claims of limited damage without providing the confidence level of her own assessments.

• (side note: She is trying to get back into Trump’s good graces - after initially disputing that Iran was close to developing a bomb - but, selectively presenting intelligence to discredit opponents sets a concerning precedent. Her statements on the nuclear sites’ usability, lacking definitive conclusions, do not clarify the broader uncertainty. Crucially, she has not clarified the fate of the highly enriched uranium, a pivotal issue.)

• The administration’s unprecedented reliance on Israeli scientists’ reports, when Trump himself admitted that the damage assessment was ‘‘inconclusive’’ added the continuous inconsistency.

• Trump suggested intelligence intercepts revealed Iranian officials acknowledging severe destruction, yet definitive proof remains elusive.

• So what is the safest, logically consistent judgement that we can arrive at?

• It is that currently, there remains insufficient evidence conclusively proving either total destruction or limited setbacks.

• Although a significant delay and disruption are likely, without certainty about the fate of the 400kgs highly enriched uranium—sufficient for 9-10 nuclear bombs—no definitive assessment can be made regarding the efficacy of these strikes in halting Iran’s nuclear weaponization capabilities.

What deal with Iran? Deal over what exactly?

• Despite these unresolved concerns, Trump now suggests a possible deal with Iran next week, a surprising development considering the Iranian parliament’s near-unanimous vote today to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

• This suspension signals Iran’s hardening stance and apparent unwillingness to negotiate.

• Any deal sought by Trump would presumably demand zero enrichment—a position held before and after the bombings, now with even less Iranian leverage.

• Yet, Iranian compliance remains unlikely.

• Given these complexities, the nature and feasibility of any potential deal are highly uncertain.

• Moreover, following the recent humiliation inflicted by Israel and the U.S., Iranian hardliners now have increased incentive to pursue nuclear weaponization to restore deterrence.

• So a comprehensive deal that would definitively limit Iran's nuclear ambitions looks less likely today than before the 12-day war.