|
中東風雲錄 -- 開欄文：埃及的加薩重建方案 -- Al Jazeera
|
瀏覽49,590 ｜回應89｜推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文為本欄開欄文。
埃及的加薩重建方案 -- Al Jazeera
What is Egypt’s plan for the reconstruction of Gaza?
Arab League endorses Egyptian proposal that provides alternative to US President Trump’s plan to take over Gaza.
Al Jazeera Staff, 03/04/25
Arab states have adopted Egypt’s Gaza reconstruction plan, providing a potential path forward after Israel’s devastating war on the Palestinian enclave.
Egypt unveiled its plan on Tuesday while hosting an Arab League Summit in its capital Cairo.
The plan offers an alternative to United States President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the Gaza Strip be depopulated to “develop” the enclave, under US control, in what critics have called ethnic cleansing. Under the Egyptian plan, Gaza’s Palestinian population would not be forced to leave the territory.
Trump had insisted that Egypt and Jordan take Palestinians forced out of Gaza by his plan, but that was quickly rejected, and the US has signalled that it is open to hearing what an Arab plan for Gaza’s post-war reconstruction would be.
Speaking at the start of the summit, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi said that Trump would be able to achieve peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Here’s everything you need to know about the plan, based on Al Jazeera’s own reporting, as well as drafts of the plan reported on by the Reuters news agency and the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram.
Play Video 請至原網頁觀看視頻
What does the Egyptian plan call for?
The plan consists of three major stages: Interim measures, reconstruction and governance.
The first stage would last about six months, while the next two phases would take place over a combined four to five years.
The aim is to reconstruct Gaza – which Israel has almost completely destroyed – maintain peace and security and reassert the governance of the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the territory, 17 years after it was kicked out following fighting between Fatah, which dominates the PA, and Hamas.
How does the plan aim to rebuild Gaza?
A six-month interim period would require a committee of Palestinian technocrats – operating under the management of the PA – to clear the rubble from Salah al-Din Street, which is the main north-south highway in the Gaza Strip.
Once the roads are clear, 200,000 temporary housing units would be built to accommodate 1.2 million people and about 60,000 damaged buildings restored.
According to the blueprint, longer-term reconstruction requires an additional four to five years after the interim measures are completed. Over that span, the plan aims to build at least 400,000 permanent homes, as well as rebuilding Gaza’s seaport and international airport.
Gradually, basic provisions such as water, a waste system, telecommunication services and electricity would also be restored.
The plan further calls for the establishment of a Steering and Management Council, which would be a financial fund supporting the interim governing body in Gaza.
In addition, conferences will be held for international donors to provide the necessary funding for reconstruction and long-term development in the Strip.
Who would be in charge of Gaza?
The plan calls for a group of “independent Palestinian technocrats” to manage affairs in Gaza, in effect replacing Hamas.
The technocratic government would be responsible for overseeing humanitarian aid and would pave the way for the PA to administer Gaza, according to el-Sisi.
Speaking at Tuesday’s summit, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said that an election could take place next year if circumstances allowed.
On the security front, Egypt and Jordan have both pledged to train Palestinian police officers and deploy them to Gaza. The two countries have also called on the United Nations Security Council to consider authorising a peacekeeping mission to oversee governance in Gaza until reconstruction is complete.
How much is this going to cost?
Egypt is calling for $53 bn to fund the reconstruction of Gaza, with the money distributed over three phases.
In the first six-month phase it would cost $3bn to clear rubble from Salah al-Din Street, construct temporary housing and restore partially damaged homes.
The second phase would take two years and cost $20bn. The work of rubble removal would continue in this phase, as well as the establishment of utility networks and the building of more housing units.
Phase three would cost $30bn and take two and a half years. It would include completing housing for Gaza’s whole population, establishing the first phase of an industrial zone, building fishing and commercial ports, and building an airport, among other services.
According to the plan, the money will be sourced from a variety of international sources including the UN and international financial organisations as well as foreign and private sector investments.
Is the plan going to work?
There are still a number of variables that could complicate the plan. Perhaps most importantly, it is unclear whether Hamas, Israel or the US will agree to it.
Hamas welcomed the reconstruction plan, and has previously agreed to a technocratic government. But it is less clear if it will accept the return of the PA, which itself would face the perception from its critics that it has returned to Gaza on the back of Israel’s tanks.
Hamas may be willing to discuss its removal from governance, but is adamantly against its disarmament – something the Egyptian plan adopted by the Arab League did not discuss.
Israel has made it clear that this is a red line, and that Hamas will not be allowed to keep its weapons. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also said that he will not allow the PA to return to Gaza.
There is also the question of whether Trump will abandon his idea of a US-controlled “Middle East Riviera” for the Egyptian plan. It is difficult to predict what Trump’s position will be, particularly if Israel signals its opposition to the Egyptian plan.
What has the response been so far?
In response to Egypt’s plan, Israel said that Arab states needed to “break free from past constraints and collaborate to create a future of stability and security in the region”.
Instead, Israel continues to back Trump’s Gaza displacement plan – which echoes a longstanding call from the Israeli far-right to depopulate Gaza.
Egypt called Israel’s response “unacceptable”, with Minister of Foreign Affairs Badr Abdelatty describing the Netanyahu government’s position as “stubborn and extremist”.
Abdelatty said it would be impossible to see peace in the region without an independent Palestinian state. “No single state should be allowed to impose its will on the international community,” he added.
The White House continues to stand by Trump’s plan for Gaza, but said it would welcome collaboration with regional partners – except Hamas.
“While the President stands by his bold vision for a post-war Gaza, he welcomes input from our Arab partners in the region. It’s clear his proposals have driven the region to come to the table rather than allow this issue to devolve into further crisis,” White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes said.
“President Trump has been clear that Hamas cannot continue to govern Gaza,” he added.
相關閱讀：
Arab leaders endorse Egypt’s Gaza reconstruction plan
European leaders back 'realistic' Arab plan for Gaza
For Israel, ceasefire is a continuation of war by other means
The Egyptian Gaza plan: A deadly trap for Israel and the US
The Egyptian plan for postwar Gaza is a good starting point—but it needs changes
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
|
川瘋又在作妖–Jon Gambrell/Seung Min Kim
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Crazed Trump Publicly Spirals as He Kills His Own Deal
我早就不看好這紙「和議草案」；我知道川普這位瘋哥安生不了幾天。當然，德黑蘭那群狂熱份子(有些因錢狂熱，有些因教義狂熱)，也都不是個東西。
Iran and US trade fire and Trump calls the ceasefire into question
JON GAMBRELL/SEUNG MIN KIM, 07/08/26
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran targeted American military sites in the Gulf on Wednesday after the U.S. launched strikes on several places in Iran and reinstated sanctions on its oil sales. Washington said it was responding to Iranian attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
The crossfire raised fears that the war in Iran could reignite — and U.S. President Donald Trump fueled those concerns by saying that the interim agreement to pause fighting was “over,” although he added that he would allow negotiations to continue.
Attacks have repeatedly threatened the shaky ceasefire, but Trump’s comments add new uncertainty, and oil prices shot up after he spoke. A renewed conflict could engulf the wider Middle East and would likely again halt energy shipments through the strait that are crucial to the global economy.
"For me, I think it's over," Trump responded when asked about the status of ceasefire. He added that U.S. representatives can continue negotiations but he cast doubt on the outcome. "They can talk, but I think they're wasting their time," he said.
The crossfire came during the dayslong funeral for Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed Feb. 28 in the war's first moments. The funeral, which ends Thursday, was supposed to be a period of lower tensions — though mourners have repeatedly called for the killings of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Negotiations to reach a final deal had been due to start after Khamenei's burial and focus on the toughest matters, including fully reopening the strait and rolling back Tehran's disputed nuclear program. But the new attacks throw that into question, though neither country immediately signaled they'd walk away from the negotiating table.
"The era of bullying and extortion is over," Iran's Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf wrote on X. "It leads nowhere. We don't fold."
Overnight US strikes target Iran
The U.S. military's Central Command said American forces launched strikes "to impose heavy costs for targeting and attacking commercial shipping crewed by innocent civilians in an international waterway."
It said it hit Iranian targets including air defense systems, radars and over 60 small boats used by Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard.
Those boats have been key to threatening ships in the strait, through which a fifth of the world's traded oil and natural gas passed before the war. Iran's ability to bring shipping in the waterway to a near halt during the war proved its greatest strategic advantage as rising prices for energy supplies, fertilizer and food put pressure on the U.S. to make a deal. On Wednesday, the price of Brent crude, the international standard, spiked over 5% after Trump's comments.
The U.S. military remains "prepared to hold Iran accountable when the agreement is not adhered to or obeyed," it added, saying this round of attacks had ended.
Iranian state media reported explosions in several locations, including in Bandar Mahshahr, where a Guard member was killed. It also reported attacks on Bushehr, home to Iran's nuclear power plant complex.
On Wednesday morning, both Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, and Kuwait, home to U.S. Army forces, sounded missile alerts. The Guard issued a statement acknowledging targeting U.S. military installations in both countries.
A similar spate of Iranian attacks on shipping and U.S. retaliatory strikes occurred late last month — which similarly drew Iranian attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait. Wednesday's strikes came as Trump was in Turkey for a summit of the NATO military alliance.
Anwar Gargash, a senior diplomat in the United Arab Emirates, called Iran's attacks on Bahrain and Kuwait "a clear indicator that Tehran remains incapable of committing to the requirements of de-escalation and turning the page on war."
US revokes the license for the sale of Iranian oil
Before the strikes, the U.S. revoked a license that authorized the sale of Iranian oil as part of the interim deal. That paused U.S. sanctions and allowed Iran to conduct oil sales openly for U.S. dollars for the first time in years. Iran long had been suspected of selling sanctioned crude at below-market prices to China.
The decision came after the strikes on shipping. One tanker was off the coast of Oman when it was hit and caught fire, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center said. Iranian state television said the tanker came under attack after ignoring warnings but did not directly claim the assault.
Majed al-Ansari, a spokesperson for the Qatari Foreign Ministry, said the tanker was carrying Qatari natural gas and called the strike an "unacceptable attack" on international navigation and global energy security. He said Qatar, which has been a key mediator alongside Pakistan in the talks, holds Iran "fully legally responsible."
The other two ships sustained some damage, but no one was injured, and both continued on their way, the U.K. agency said.
Iran and the United States agreed as part of the interim deal to allow ships to pass through the strait without paying charges for 60 days. But Tehran has insisted it must control the vessels' routes and vowed to later charge fees for passage. That would upend decades of practice in the waterway. The ships attacked Tuesday all appeared to be using a route close to Oman's shore, rather than one ordered by Tehran.
The U.S. and many Gulf Arab states say they will not agree to Iran charging for passage through the strait.
Mourners attend Khamenei's funeral services in Iraq
Funeral ceremonies for Khamenei were held Wednesday in the Iraqi city of Najaf. Attending the services are Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and other Iranian as well as Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Ali Falah al-Zaidi. There will be funeral prayers later at the Imam Hussein shrine in Karbala as well.
Khamenei's son, Iran's new Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, has yet to make an appearance at the ceremonies, which began Saturday in Tehran. He is believed to be in hiding after reportedly being wounded in the airstrike that killed his father.
Khamenei's body will then be returned to Iran to be buried Thursday at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, his birthplace.
Kim reported from Ankara, Turkey. Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran; Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Najaf, Iraq; and Collin Binkley in Washington contributed.
相關報導
* How might these attacks affect global oil prices?
* What role does Pakistan play in the Gulf negotiations?
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
海灣國家自行與伊朗進行協商 - Sophia Yan
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* US launches new strikes on Iran, revokes oil sales permit after 3 ships attacked in Strait of Hormuz (07/08)
Gulf plans to cut the US out of Iran deal
Amid Washington’s declining credibility under Trump, regional players are calibrating new normal with Tehran
Sophia Yan, 06/30/26
The first talks were between Iran and Oman, then between Oman and Qatar, followed by Iran and Saudi Arabia, and finally, Qatar and Saudi Arabia – all aimed at hammering out what regional co-existence would look like once the war dust settled.
Such dizzying diplomatic activity is just getting started, with more meetings expected, as Gulf nations calibrate a new normal with Iran.
Discussions have covered how traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will be managed and what financial incentives the Gulf might provide Iran in exchange for possible security concessions.
It is happening alongside – albeit separately from – ongoing negotiations between the US and Iran to hammer out a longer-term peace deal by a late August deadline.
"US credibility has declined considerably, and that's been going on now for many years," said Gonul Tol, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. The thinking is that "we just have to reach our own understanding with Iran – it wouldn't be surprising if Gulf countries actually cut their own deal".
For now, the public messaging has been consistent with the US. A joint statement following a recent ministerial meeting of a regional alliance – attended by Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state – emphasised the importance of "free, unconditional and unrestricted navigation" and rejected "any tolls, fees, or attempts to assert control over the strait".
"It's going to be a red line from their point of view," said Aniseh Bassiri Tabrizi of Chatham House.
But Gulf diplomats and experts have also highlighted that they believed Iran would not simply let go of what it regards as its ultimate trump card, and that they need to be realistic regarding potential outcomes.
The Telegraph understands that there are ongoing ideas floated for a possible scheme in which "service fees" will be collected, ostensibly to cover the costs of demining the strait, mitigate environmental degradation, port charges or for insurance purposes.
It is unclear which organisation would host the mechanism, how funds would be collected, and to whom final disbursement would be received.
Iran has already started moving in this direction, issuing through its newly created Gulf Strait Authority a requirement for vessels to have Iranian insurance. That is meant to take effect after the 60-day window expires, during which Tehran and Washington aim to come to a longer-term agreement.
"Iran has now realised that it has a more effective weapon than a nuclear one – Hormuz – that they can use anytime, so there will be some kind of arrangement where Iran will continue to call the shots," said Ms Tol. "They will do everything to keep that leverage."
No amount of dressing up the fees will appease Donald Trump, the US president, who has repeatedly said no charges would be allowed. Experts also worry that this would set a dangerous precedent, though under an international maritime treaty that bans transit fees, charges may be levied for "specific services rendered to the ship".
But the Gulf states may have little choice. Iran's feared Revolutionary Guards threatened vessels in the strait last week after the UN, Iran and Oman agreed on two routes to allow stranded vessels to evacuate.
Iran insisted that it was the sole authority for designated routes, warning that "vessel traffic outside these routes is prohibited and highly dangerous".
The next day, a Taiwanese shipping operator said its vessel was hit in the strait by what US officials said was an Iranian drone, the first such attack since the US and Iran signed an interim ceasefire deal.
Washington and Tehran then traded retaliatory attacks that spread to the Gulf states. The two sides have since agreed to halt further strikes before talks in Qatar on Tuesday.
These Iranian threats and attacks "likely serve as an implicit warning to Gulf countries – particularly Oman ... that Iran will continue to attack international shipping if they do not co-operate with Iran", according to a report by the Soufan Center, a US-based non-profit research organisation.
Even without these attacks, "Gulf countries were already preparing themselves for a situation where things might not come back as usual", said Yasmine Farouk, who leads research on Arab Gulf countries at the International Crisis Group, a non-profit think tank. "They're going to take matters into their own hands, in the regional tracks of discussion."
Saudi Arabia is expected to lead on broader talks over regional security, with nations arranging direct, individual meetings with Iran regarding the management of Hormuz. Yet another grouping could include Iraq, which is economically dependent on oil exports through the strait.
The main leverage that the Gulf nations have is financial – the ability to invest in Iran, whose economy is in dire straits, both from sanctions and the impact of war.
"They feel this is Iran's Achilles' heel once the war ends," said Ms Farouk.
But they will seek concessions from Iran to reduce the threats they face just across the water. That could mean limiting the number of missiles that Iran is allowed to have, or curbing the regime's efforts to arm its proxy groups, which also launched attacks against Gulf states in this war.
The numerous separate meetings ongoing within the Gulf – and alongside broader Tehran-Washington negotiations – underlines the region's departure from relying primarily on the US.
"America will remain the backbone of their defence structure and of their defence systems," said Ms Farouk. "The US has had, for a long time, a monopoly over defence relations and arms procurement over the Gulf. Whatever America doesn't have or can't be procured fast enough – or if the US doesn't have something to deal with the Iranian threat – they are going to look for it elsewhere."
Diversification is already happening. In May, Kuwait established a defence procurement framework with Turkey to buy drones and air defence systems. Ukraine, too, has recently signed deals to export drones to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The Gulf states are looking further afield, with Saudi Arabia holding several meetings in a new "quad" with Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey.
Confidence in the US has been waning ever since Mr Trump's first administration, particularly after he pulled out of an Iran nuclear deal in 2018, as a result of which Tehran gradually ceased complying with restrictions on its nuclear programme.
Then, in Mr Trump's current term, his decisions to go to war with Iran twice – and threats to pull out of Nato – have worried many countries that even commitments on paper from Washington may not amount to much of a guarantee.
But they'll probably still push for a way to restore confidence, perhaps along the lines of the 2025 executive order Mr Trump signed "assuring the security of the state of Qatar".
Still, Gulf nations are realising "we have to do things based on the assumption that the US is not going to be there, and even if it is there, it can do things that will undermine us", said Ms Tol.
And despite all the diplomatic overtures made towards Iran over the years – including the UAE turning a blind eye to the regime moving sanctioned funds through Dubai, an international financial hub – they will remain a target.
That is perhaps even more of a concern with a new, more radical Iranian regime. Past regimes, for instance, never shut down Hormuz when they could have weaponised control of the strait.
Given that, the Gulf states are not going to ask the US military to leave the region outright, though they remain disappointed over broken promises.
But they will "supplement their strategies by having plan B and plan C, in case the US does not follow through on its security guarantees and defence promises", said Ms Farouk.
Try full access to The Telegraph free today. Unlock their award-winning website and essential news app, plus useful tools and expert guides for your money, health and holidays.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
《美、伊「和議草案」分析》讀後
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
臭名昭彰的「和議草案」 ---- To Put It Bluntly
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文的標題和意旨都跟拙作相近(本欄2026/06/18)；我不好意思說：「英雄所見略同」，就稱之為：「公道自在人心」吧。
AN MOU THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY
TO PUT IT BLUNTLY (A Blog), 06/20/26
Three months ago, in the midst of war, this website posted: “President Trump is not the kind of man given to introspection. He is more interested in winning than in reflection. But he seems to realize that his historical legacy will depend upon the success or failure of the war against Iran.”
We need not wait for history’s verdict on the President’s legacy. The war against Iran – which began promisingly, with a popular uprising, the decapitation of the enemy’s leadership, and the destruction of the most of its military assets — has ended in unmitigated disaster. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the President leaves Iran stronger, richer, and more influential than it has ever been at any time since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. It leaves the United States humiliated, and its allies uncertain and insecure.
In defending the MOU, the President and his Vice President have repeatedly said that any concessions to Iran belong to the future, to be bestowed only as rewards for their good behavior.
This is a lie. The MOU bestows rewards upon Iran immediately.
In fact it is more than a lie. It is an insult to the American people. Trump and Vance appear to believe that we are either incapable of reading, or too busy to be bothered with doing so. For even a cursory review of this short document shows the falsity of these assertions.
Paragraph 4 of the document reads: “Immediately upon the signing of this M.O.U., the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days.” There is no waiting period to see whether Iran behaves correctly. The removal of our blockade begins immediately, and must be completed within a month. That means that the homicidal lunatics who run that country will begin to receive revenue from Iranian exports immediately.
The value of this concession is immense. Before the war, Iran earned between $3.45 to $3.9 billion per month from its oil exports. That comes out to about $115 to $130 million per day. That revenue, restored by the MOU without any requirement of good behavior, will enrich the regime, ensure its survival, and enable it to fund its terrorist proxies.
In defending the MOU, Trump has also said that the United States would never accept Iran placing tolls on commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. That too is a lie. The MOU does precisely that, and it does so, again, without any requirement of good behavior.
Paragraph 5 of the document reads: “Upon the signing of this M.O.U., the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only ….”
So after 60 days, regardless of its good or bad behavior, Iran will be free to charge tolls.
The rest of Paragraph 5 calls upon Iran to “conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.” The only point for this “dialogue” will be to set the amount Iran can charge.
When Iranian sources leaked the existence of reparations in the draft MOU, Trump angrily called the story “fake news,” and he called the leakers “very dishonorable.” The Iranian leakers might be dishonorable but they told the truth.
Paragraph 6 reads: “The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least U.S.D. 300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
This is a gigantic amount of money, dwarfing the $50 billion in frozen assets released under President Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Trump insists this money will not come from U.S. taxpayers. But who cares where it comes from? It might come from the Persian Gulf States, eager to curry favor with an Iran that appears to have humbled the world’s sole superpower. It might come from deals worked out by Trump family members. What matters is not the source of the money, but America’s obligation to raise it. And let’s not kid ourselves about how this $300 billion reparations fund will be spent. It will not be spent solely on reconstruction. It will also be spent developing weapons and subsidizing terrorist organizations.
Paragraph 7 calls upon the U.S. to “undertake to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The MOU imposes no conditions on Iran to receive this benefit. Instead, it deems the termination of sanctions a matter of “critical importance” and calls up on both countries “to immediately address these issues in the negotiations.”
Ironically, this provision may actually increase the chance of military action in the future. Sanctions are one of the few non-military levers the U.S. can wield. Without sanctions, the U.S. will have few options other than resuming warfare to keep Iran in check.
Trump has repeatedly said that deal ensures that Iran will never have nuclear weapons. Paragraph 8 seems to do just that. But, to borrow one of Trump’s favorite insults, only a low IQ reader would believe that it accomplishes that purpose.
In Paragraph 8, Iran “reaffirms” that it shall not develop nuclear weapons. Note the word: “reaffirms.” Iran has affirmed again and again that it will not develop nuclear weapons. And it has lied again and again. Iran vowed it would not develop nuclear weapons in 1970 under the Shah, when it ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It repeated this vow in 2015 under the mullahs when it ratified the JCPOA. Every now and then, it repeats it, sometimes adding for good measure that the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei once “issued a fatwa and declared it forbidden to acquire a bomb.” This is also a lie. No such fatwa was ever issued.
We don’t have to speculate about the veracity of these affirmations and reaffirmations. We know Iran lied and continues to lie. In 2018, Israeli agents stole a half ton of documents, some of them handwritten, from a warehouse in Tehran, detailing Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons development program. We also know Iran lied because last June, in Operation Midnight Hammer, we bombed (Trump said “obliterated”) their nuclear weapon development centers. If Iran hadn’t been lying, these facilities would not have existed and there would have been nothing for Operation Midnight Hammer to hammer.
In short, there is nothing in Iran’s “reaffirmation” that assures that the country will not continue its nuclear weapons development program. Thanks to the MOU’s terms allowing tolls and unfreezing assets, Iran will be in a much stronger financial position to invest in that program.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 provide further proof that Trump and Vance lie when they insist that under the MOU Iran receives no up-front benefits. Under Paragraph 10: “The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this M.O.U., and until the termination of sanctions, U.S. Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil.” Under Paragraph 11: “The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this M.O.U.” Those “frozen” funds and assets are estimated to be at least $24 billion. That’s $24 billion given away without any preconditions of good behavior.
This humiliating MOU is bad for the United States. But it is even worse for parties who are directly affected by it, but who were deprived of any opportunity to address their concerns.
Under Paragraph 1, the final deal “will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
There is only one reason that fighting persists in Lebanon. Iran uses Lebanon as a base from which its proxy Hezbollah fires missiles and drones at Israel, and Israel retaliates by attacking Hezbollah sites. Under the MOU, any time Israel retaliates for these attacks on its citizens, Iran will claim that the deal has been violated.
Israel has a sovereign right to defend itself, and will do so regardless of the MOU. But the MOU drives a wedge between Israel and the United States. We have seen a preview of how this wedge works when Vance rebuked Israeli leaders who have criticized the deal, stating: “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I would not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.” In other words, the Vice President implied, sit still when attacked or lose your only friend.
But the saddest impact of the MOU on non-parties concerns the brave Iranian people, who stood up against their fanatical rulers and died in their tens of thousands. On February 28, as we went to war, Trump told them: “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
With his signature on the MOU, Trump delivered a different message. Paragraph 2 reads: “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.”
Having begun the war urging the Iranian people to overthrow their despots, we have ended the war agreeing to “respect” those same despots. This betrayal reeks of Munich.
When not lying about the terms of the MOU, Trump has justified our capitulation (投降，屈服) by claiming that it was the only way of avoiding “economic catastrophe” and “having your favorite president be Herbert Hoover.”
Trump may not be remembered as Herbert Hoover. He will certainly be remembered as Neville Chamberlain.
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
美、伊「和議草案」分析-Mike Watson
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* 臭名昭彰的「和議草案」 (作者：To Put It Bluntly，本欄2026/06/22)
Did Iran Just Get the Better of Us?
What to make of the MOU
Mike Watson, 06/17/26
The political drama about the Iran deal is nearing its climax as Vice President J.D. Vance prepares to sign on Friday the memorandum of understanding with Iran that he and Donald Trump electronically signed on Sunday. The administration just read out the official text of this MOU.
Most successful negotiations require some level of secrecy while they are underway, but the extended murkiness about this agreement—which the president has already signed—is unusual. Vance remarked on Monday, "The MOU is about a page and a half, so it is a very general document," and the text indicates the negotiators left most issues of significance unaddressed. The American and Israeli militaries performed splendidly during the six-week war, but the MOU reveals the White House is more eager for a deal than the mullahs are. This stage of the Iran conflict is a defeat, and the next step is to limit the damage to U.S. interests.
The MOU lays out several stages of negotiations, but the first one is the only one that is likely to go into effect and thus deserves the most scrutiny. In essence, the United States will "fully end the naval blockade within 30 days," "immediately" enable Iran to export oil and related products, and "make fully available for use" Iranian funds that the Treasury Department has frozen. Iran says it will "make arrangements using its best efforts" to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and not charge any tolls "for 60 days only."
Once those steps are underway, a final agreement will supposedly be negotiated. In the interim, Iran says it will "maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program" and Trump "will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region." The two parties commit to "the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon."
Much of the language in this document is vague, so it is difficult to pin down what each country has actually agreed to, but the plainest meaning of the text indicates a lopsided deal. The United States has committed to immediately easing its economic pressure on Iran, and Iran has only promised to set in motion a process that should eventually open the Strait. The Islamic Republic—which is still attacking shipping in the Strait—can drag its feet, but the United States must leap to comply. Tehran can continue its campaign of international terrorism, rebuild its war machine, and perhaps even extort protection money from Gulf shipping while Washington stands pat.
The rest of the document is unlikely to come to fruition unless Trump also caves on Iran's enriched uranium. The MOU's "minimum methodology" would permit the mullahs to keep a slightly lower-grade blend, which might actually ease their path to a bomb if it enables them to excavate their material that was buried by American B-2s last summer. Iran would receive over $300 billion if it came to an arrangement about its nuclear program that satisfies Trump, but with the pressure off, there is little reason to believe that it will make any further concessions. And CIA director John Ratcliffe reportedly told Trump that his agency collected intelligence indicating Iran's leaders intend to play a double game with these negotiations.
Some commentators have noted, correctly, that there are few yardsticks by which to measure compliance, to say nothing of mechanisms to enforce deviations from the agreement. That is beside the point. Trump signed this document because he escalated the conflict as far as he was willing to go, did not get the results he wanted, and is now trying to put the conflict in the rearview mirror. There will be little enthusiasm in the White House to hold Iran to its obligations and risk provoking it further.
If Trump does not find a way to recover quickly, this MOU could mark the effective end of his presidency. The air campaign inflicted significant damage on Iran's military capabilities and nuclear program, which will buy some time. But the Gulf Arabs, who have been in the crosshairs for months, are unlikely to wait until Tehran has fully rearmed to cut a deal. And since Trump has agreed to restrain Israel, which reportedly was not even allowed to see the text, he cannot use his most capable ally to curb Iran. The ripple effects could extend far beyond the Middle East. The midterms are looking grim, the Iran campaign has split the president's party, congressional Republicans are openly expressing their impatience, and Trump is now in danger of presiding over a regional collapse.
Second-term presidents often run into similar challenges, and many turn to foreign policy, where they have the fewest domestic constraints on action. Trump has a flair for improvisation and is eager to build a lasting legacy, so he is likely to make the same pivot. But to turn the tide against America's fanatical enemies, he also needs to exhibit steadfastness and resolve.
Update 3:20 p.m.: This piece has been updated since publication.
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
美、伊「和議草案」小評
|
|
|
推薦0 |
|
美、伊「和議草案」小評
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
美、伊14點「和議草案」內容 – MEE Staff
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Full text of US-Iran deal promises sanctions relief and phased access to frozen funds: Report
US may pull forces out of areas near Iran as part of a final peace deal and commits to supporting a $300bn reconstruction fund, Bloomberg says
MEE staff, 06/16/26
Iran is set to receive sanctions relief for the sale of its oil and related petroleum products as part of a memorandum of understanding with the US that could also unlock $300bn for the redevelopment of the Islamic Republic, according to the text of the agreement circulating in US media.
The details have been reported by several media outlets, but Bloomberg obtained a full draft of the memorandum which appears to usher in sweeping gains for Iran without addressing key US war objectives.
For example, the memorandum cited by Bloomberg does not address the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium, long considered a sticking point in negotiations.
Nor does it mention Iran’s conventional military forces, like its ballistic missile arsenal, which Trump entered the war calling a threat to the US.
The memorandum also says that the ceasefire includes “all fronts, including in Lebanon”, reaffirming a key Iranian demand that is sure to anger US ally Israel.
Below is a summary of the 14 points in the memorandum signed digitally by the US and Iran on Sunday, according to Bloomberg.
A final signing ceremony is expected to take place on Friday in Switzerland. Middle East Eye could not independently verify all the points in the list.
1. The US and Iran, along with their allies, agree to “an immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts”.
2. The second clause contains a joint commitment to respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.
3. Iran and the US agree to negotiate a final peace deal over the next 60 days and extend the current ceasefire if needed.
4. The US agreed to lift its naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. This section also contains a mention of withdrawing "its [US] forces” from “surrounding areas” within 30 days of the final agreement. It is not clear where the geographic boundaries are.
5. Iran agrees to lift its blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and remove any obstacles.
6. The US agrees to “ensure financing of at least $300 billion” for the “rehabilitation and economic development” of Iran. This sum is part of a final agreement that will be implemented within 60 days.
7. The US commits to a phased lifting of all sanctions on Iran, including “resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and all unilateral US sanctions, both primary and secondary”. No timeline is given for this process.
8. Iran reiterates that it will not produce a nuclear weapon. This section also says the fate of Iran's enriched uranium and wider nuclear programme will be addressed in a final agreement. It is notable that the ceasefire does not include an immediate demand for Iran not to enrich uranium.
9. Iran promises not to develop its nuclear programme in the next 60 days. “Iran will maintain the status quo on its nuclear program, and the US will not impose new sanctions on Iran or strengthen its forces in the region,” the text adds.
10. The US agrees to issue sanctions waivers for the sale of Iranian oil and petroleum products. The text adds that “All related services, including banking, insurance, transportation, and the like” are included in the waiver.
11. Iran will obtain access to its frozen funds based on the “progress” of negotiations in the next 60 days.
12. An implementation mechanism will be established to oversee any final agreement.
13. The US and Iran will continue the framework for negotiating the final agreement following “commencement of implementation of Articles 4, 5, 10, and 11”.
14. The final peace deal will be approved by a binding United Nations Security Council resolution.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
相關報導：
* US refused to share Iran deal text with Israel: Report
* Qatar looks to rapidly restart LNG exports once Hormuz reopens: Report
* 'From outlier to trailblazer': How Oman offers a glimpse into the post-war Gulf
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
|
美、伊能維持和平協議嗎？ -- Lara Jakes
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Why the U.S.-Iran Deal Might Work, and Why It Might Not
For all of the cautious optimism surrounding the framework agreement, some of the toughest issues lie ahead, and the deal could still fall apart.
Lara Jakes, 06/15/26
0. 前言
The framework to end the war in Iran pauses nearly four months of hostilities that have killed thousands of people and sent global energy prices soaring. Now comes the hard part.
For all of the cautious optimism that the U.S.-Iran agreement could pave a path to peace, experts remained skeptical that it could survive the next 60-day round of negotiations on a final deal. The terms of the framework have not been released, and it’s possible, even likely, that negotiators on either side have interpreted the tentative agreement differently, analysts said Monday.
Here’s a look at reasons the deal could survive, and why it might not.
1. Why the deal might succeed
* Both sides want the Strait of Hormuz safely reopened to shipping traffic. The vital waterway for oil and gas has been shut down by Iranian attacks and by a U.S. naval blockade that sought to cut off Iranian oil revenue. If the strait reopens, it could calm global financial markets, help Iran’s economy and bring down soaring gas prices in the United States, possibly easing a political headache for President Trump.
* Both sides have burned through weapons. The Pentagon has moved military forces and vast numbers of air defense missiles to the Persian Gulf, where allied countries host American troops. That has potentially left other global hot spots vulnerable, particularly in Europe, where NATO is helping Ukraine defend itself against Russia, and in Taiwan and South Korea, which are worried about aggression from China. While U.S. intelligence assessments indicated as recently as a month ago that Iran retained much of its stockpiles of missiles and launchers, Tehran has launched more than 1,500 missiles and 4,700 drones against Gulf states since February, according to the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.
* Mr. Trump is desperate to declare victory. The president has cast himself as a peacemaker, despite launching the war with Iran alongside Israel on Feb. 28. The war has sent his approval ratings to new lows and prompted some Republican lawmakers to break with him as midterm elections loom. James M. Dorsey, a Middle East expert at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, said the United States and Iran have gotten to “a point where both sides can declare victory.”
2. Why the deal might fall apart
* Israel does not appear to be on board. After helping to push Mr. Trump to go to war in February, Israel was not directly involved in the U.S. negotiations with Iran. On Sunday, even as the framework appeared to be taking shape, Israel risked upending the talks with its continued strikes in Lebanon against Iran-allied Hezbollah. While Iran and Pakistan, a key mediator, asserted that the framework will end military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, Israel’s defense minister on Monday indicated that his country’s attacks against Hezbollah would continue as long as Israel considered itself under threat.
* Sanctions and frozen assets may be a sticking point. Iran wants the United States to ease financial sanctions and unlock billions of dollars of its assets that are frozen in foreign banks. It is not clear how or if these issues are addressed in the framework, but Mr. Trump has repeatedly berated former President Barack Obama over a 2015 nuclear deal that gave Iran some respite on both fronts in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. Mr. Trump withdrew from that deal in his first term.
* Iran may not agree to limits on its nuclear program. Mr. Trump has said he went to war in order to ensure Iran will never develop a nuclear weapon. Iran’s leaders have long insisted that their nuclear program is purely for civilian purposes, and that it has a right to enrich nuclear material under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Negotiators will soon haggle over how long Iran should agree to pause uranium enrichment, at what levels it can enrich uranium in the future and what happens to the highly enriched uranium it already has — all deeply contentious issues.
Nate Swanson, a former U.S. diplomat who is an Iran expert at the Atlantic Council, said that “there will likely be a significant delta” between what Iran and the Trump administration aspire to resolve and what is ultimately achieved in the talks.
Lara Jakes, a Times reporter based in Rome, reports on conflict and diplomacy, with a focus on weapons and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. She has been a journalist for more than 30 years.
A version of this article appears in print on June 16, 2026, Section A, Page 9 of the New York edition with the headline: The Variables for the Agreement’s Survival
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
美、伊定06/19簽署和議草案 - Parisa Hafezi等
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Vance delays trip to Switzerland to lead new US talks with Iran on its nuclear program (06/19；還真讓我這張烏鴉嘴說中了。)
* How Trump’s Iran Deal Breaks Sharply From Obama’s 2015 JCPOA (06/16)
* Trump heralds Iran deal but questions - and risks - remain
談談打打，扭扭捏捏兩個月後，雙方終於屈服於現實。胡半仙曰：06/19前變卦的機率大概低於20%。
US, Iran reach preliminary agreement to end war, signing set for Friday
Parisa Hafezi/Phil Stewart/Yomna Ehab, 06/15/26
DUBAI/WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) - U.S. and Iranian officials said they had agreed on a framework to end their war, halt the U.S. blockade of Iran and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a preliminary pact that sent oil prices falling but leaves the fate of Iran's nuclear program to further negotiations.
"The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete," U.S. President Donald Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform around 5:30 p.m. ET local time in Washington (2130 GMT) on Sunday. His post came shortly after Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, whose country has served as a mediator, announced a deal had been struck early on Monday local time.
The memorandum of understanding is scheduled to be officially signed on Friday in Switzerland.
The precise terms were not immediately known. Sharif said in a post on X that the pact called for "the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon."
Lebanon has been a sticking point in negotiations, with Israel and Hezbollah ignoring calls from Trump and others to stop their attacks on each other in recent weeks.
In a statement, the secretariat of Iran's Supreme National Security Council said war and military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, would end permanently starting on Monday night.
Iran's deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, said a more expansive agreement would be negotiated during a 60-day ceasefire period, including sanctions relief for Iran.
The fate of Iran's nuclear program, another thorny issue, will also be addressed in those later talks, sources previously told Reuters.
There was no immediate reaction to the announcement from Israel, which has said it was not party to the U.S.-Iran talks.
STRAIT TO REOPEN
Trump said the Strait of Hormuz, a major shipping route for global oil and gas supplies that Iran has effectively shut down for months, would open on Friday, and that he had ordered the end of the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports.
"Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!" Trump wrote.
Oil prices fell on the news. Brent crude futures fell 4% in early trading on Monday, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate slid more than 4.6%. Stock markets in Asia jumped.
Former Biden administration State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said Trump had made important concessions to Iran to achieve the status quo that existed before he launched the war.
"We have no assurances the nuclear program will ever be addressed, but Iran has shown the world it can take the global economy hostage and get something from the U.S. in return," said Miller.
Thousands of people have been killed, mostly in Iran and Lebanon, since U.S. and Israeli forces first attacked Iran on February 28. Iran has struck Israel and Gulf states hosting U.S. bases and has effectively blockaded the Strait of Hormuz, pushing up global energy prices. U.S. forces have blocked Iranian ports in response.
The Iran war has become a political liability at home for Trump and his fellow Republicans in Congress, with public opinion polls showing Americans deeply frustrated by rising gas prices ahead of November's midterm elections. But Trump has also faced pressure from members of his own party who insist that Iran's nuclear program must be completely shut down.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a leading Iran hawk, praised the deal but said he would be "watching closely" the coming negotiations on Iran's nuclear program.
"Under our law, any nuclear deal with Iran will be sent to Congress for review and a vote," he said. "Congratulations to all in getting us to this point."
During his first term, Trump withdrew the U.S. from a 2015 multilateral Iran deal, negotiated by Democratic President Barack Obama, that lifted sanctions on Tehran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program, including international inspections.
Iran responded by ramping up its enrichment of uranium, producing more than 400 kg (around 900 pounds) of material at close to bomb-grade purity. The eventual fate of that uranium is likely to be a key negotiating point during the upcoming talks.
'A VERY DIFFICULT GUY'
The agreement was sealed despite an Israeli strike on Lebanon on Sunday that drew criticism from both Iran and Trump.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has differed with Trump over American demands that Israel curb its military action in Lebanon to allow the United States to reach a deal with Iran.
Israel has said it will retain freedom of operations in Lebanon, while Iran has made a full ceasefire there an important component of its demands.
Trump updated Netanyahu on the progress toward a peace deal during a phone call on Sunday, Israel's N12 reported, citing a senior official.
In an interview with the New York Times, Trump called Netanyahu "a very difficult guy" and argued the Israeli leader should thank him for saving Israel from a nuclear-armed Iran.
Leaders outside the Middle East, who have kept a wary eye on the conflict, welcomed the announcement.
In a joint statement, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy said they were prepared to lift sanctions on Iran in response to "clear, verifiable steps" to limit its nuclear program.
"We are clear that toll-free freedom of navigation must now be restored in the Strait of Hormuz," British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said. "Iran must never have a nuclear weapon."
Before the deal was announced, a senior Iranian official told Reuters that, under the terms of the draft, the United States would agree to release $25 billion of frozen Iranian assets. The Trump administration has previously said any release of Iranian money would only take place once Iran has fulfilled certain conditions under a peace deal.
A U.S. official, also speaking before the announcement, said the agreement would ultimately lead to the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program, with its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to be destroyed and removed. The senior Iranian official said the draft deal would allow Iran, which denies seeking a nuclear bomb, to dilute its enriched uranium inside the country.
(Reporting by Reuters bureaus; Writing by Timothy Heritage and Joseph Ax; Editing by Sergio Non, William Mallard, Alex Richardson, Will Dunham, Barbara Lewis and Lincoln Feast.)
Terms and Privacy Policy
Privacy Dashboard
本文於 修改第 6 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
