Nearly a year after the ceasefire agreement in Gaza, two years after the agreement in Lebanon, and several months after the understanding with Iran, Israeli circles continue to express dissatisfaction with the results on the ground, arguing that Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran achieved more of their objectives than the concessions they made, while Israel emerged with a less favourable balance.
Colonel Doron Hadar, former commander of the Israeli military’s Crisis Management and Negotiations Unit, said the framework agreements drafted by the United States across the three arenas are now beginning to unravel.
These include the 20-point Gaza agreement led by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the 14-point Iran agreement led by JD Vance, and the 14-point Lebanon agreement led by Marco Rubio.
Writing in Yedioth Ahronoth, Hadar argued that the three agreements share a clear feature: they are framework agreements or memoranda of understanding presented under the prominent banner of the White House, but built around vague language, partial commitments and, most importantly, an absence of effective mechanisms for dealing with violations.
He noted that the agreements contain almost no clear provisions explaining what happens when one side fails to fulfil its commitments or what price it would be required to pay.
Iran Bought What It Needed Most: Time
According to Hadar, the Iranian axis, comprising the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hezbollah and Hamas, achieved its immediate objective of stopping the intensive use of force by Israel and the United States.
The price paid by these parties, he argued, was only partial. They suffered damage but survived, made relatively limited commitments and, crucially, gained time.
Iran, he said, provides the clearest example.
Tehran accepted the memorandum of understanding promoted by JD Vance because it obtained what it needed at that moment: a ceasefire and an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, although that arrangement lasted only a few days.
No agreement was reached on Iran’s nuclear programme, while both sides refused to discuss ballistic missiles. The same applied to Iranian funding and arming of allied organisations.
In practice, Hadar argued, Iran purchased its most valuable resource: time to survive, reorganise and recover from the strikes it had sustained.
Its main commitment was to enter negotiations for 60 days. That period has since expired without sustained or effective progress on the core disputes.
Gaza Agreement Delivered Hostages, but Hamas Also Secured Major Gains
Hadar described the 20-point Gaza agreement as the most successful of the three from Israel’s perspective.
Israel recovered 20 living hostages and the bodies of 28 hostages who had been killed, which he described as a major and important achievement in itself.
However, he argued that the broader balance must also be examined.
Israel released 1,900 Palestinian prisoners, including 250 whom Hadar described as among the most dangerous prisoners, out of 270 who had been imprisoned on the eve of the agreement.
Hamas, meanwhile, secured substantial gains.
The intense fighting stopped, and most of the prisoners whose release Hamas had demanded before 7 October were freed.
Hamas also did not agree to expose its leadership or disarm.
Hadar further argued that Hamas’s willingness to transfer civilian authority to other Palestinian entities at some point in the future should not be viewed as a new concession, since the movement had made similar statements in the past.
Lebanon Agreement Remains Far From Full Implementation
Hadar said the situation in Lebanon appears similar.
The agreement was negotiated with the Lebanese state and Hezbollah, while Israel found itself largely observing the implementation process.
The deal initially received considerable attention and, at times, appeared to be the first step towards a possible peace agreement.
Some even began imagining a future in which Israelis would travel to Beirut.
On the ground, however, Hadar said the picture has been considerably more limited.
The intensive fighting has stopped, but implementation of the agreement’s provisions still appears far from reality.
