ABD-İran Geçici Anlaşması Cuma İmzalanıyor, Trump'tan Netanyahu'ya Sert Uyarı
ABD ile İran, 19 Haziran Cuma günü İsviçre'de geçici bir anlaşma imzalamaya hazırlanıyor. 14 maddelik mutabakat zaptı, iki aylık ateşkesin uzatılmasını ve İran'ın nükleer programına ilişkin kapsamlı müzakerelerin başlamasını öngörüyor. ABD Başkanı Donald Trump, anlaşmayı 'başarılı' olarak nitelendirirken İran'ın asla nükleer silah sahibi olamayacağını vurguladı. Her iki taraf da anlaşmadan zaferle çıktığını iddia ediyor. Washington, İran'ın zenginleştirilmiş uranyumunun elden çıkarılmasını talep ederken Tahran'dan henüz resmî bir açıklama gelmedi. Analistler bu adımı nihaî bir çözümden ziyade sıkı denetimli bir müzakere sürecinin başlangıcı olarak değerlendiriyor. Trump ise anlaşmanın imzalanmaması durumunda savaşın yeniden başlayacağı uyarısında bulunarak masada sert gücü elden bırakmadığını gösterdi. Aynı gün Trump'ın İsrail Başbakanı Binyamin Netanyahu'ya yönelik 'biraz aklını başına alması gerektiği' çıkışı dikkat çekti. İsrail basını, Netanyahu'nun bakanlarına Trump'ı şahsen eleştirmemeleri talimatı verdiğini yazdı. Bu söylemler, müttefik iki ülke arasında İran'a yaklaşım konusundaki gerilimin su yüzüne çıktığına işaret ediyor.
This summary is currently in Turkish; automated English translation is coming soon.
Bağlam, hikayenin etrafındaki ülke + lider + komşu hikaye ağına dayanılarak AI tarafından üretildi. Olgu içerikleri için her zaman üstteki kaynak linklerine başvurun.
Bu gündemi takip et
ABD gelişmelerini kaçırma — ücretsiz kaydol, günlük brifinginde gör.
Timeline
latest: 27 Jun- Security14 Jun, 03:49
Analysis: Deal is ‘first step, not final breakthrough’
SIGNALS from the US and Iran that a framework agreement could be signed as early as this weekend are being viewed in Washington policy circles not as a final breakthrough but as the start of a tightly managed and uncertain negotiation process. Analysts at leading American think tanks, including the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institution, caution that even if a preliminary understanding emerges, it is likely to resemble an outline agreement rather than a comprehensive settlement and would sit within a broader strategic realignment already reshaping the Middle East and the global order. US President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested that a “major understanding” with Iran is close, while Iranian officials have also signalled progress towards an interim arrangement. Diplomats tracking the talks describe the emerging outcome as a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that would establish principles for further negotiations rather than resolve core disputes. American think tanks believe the expected MoU to outline principles for further negotiations According to Jonathan Panikoff, director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council, what is taking shape remains preliminary. “It’s not a deal. It’s an MoU. It’s a rough outline and high-level explanation of the concepts a deal is supposed to be about,” he said, noting that a 60-day negotiating window would likely follow. Panikoff argues that Washington must preserve leverage throughout this period, including a continued US military presence in the region as a deterrent signal. He also stresses the need for closer coordination with European partners, saying the US should work with France, Germany and the UK to ensure “a unified policy toward Iran”. He further suggests that any durable agreement would likely have to extend beyond nuclear constraints to include Iran’s missile programme and regional network of allied groups, alongside wider regional stabilisation efforts. Diplomacy amid uncertainty While the possible agreement is drawing attention as a diplomatic opening, analysts at the Brookings Institution argue that it is unfolding against a backdrop of deeper geopolitical strain. In commentary associated with American researcher Robert Kagan and Brookings-related strategic analysis, the broader pattern of recent conflicts, including wars involving major powers, is seen as producing indecisive and prolonged engagements that erode perceptions of both US and Russian strategic effectiveness. The result, they argue, is a gradual shift towards a more fragmented international system in which traditional power guarantees are weakening and states increasingly hedge their security alignments. A separate Brookings analysis by Kari Heerman and David Wessel highlights how developments in the Strait of Hormuz are reshaping thinking about global trade security. They argue that access to key maritime routes is becoming more politically conditioned, allowing states to reward partners, penalise rivals and exert pressure without fully disrupting global trade. The concern, they note, is the gradual erosion of predictable, rules-based maritime transit. In another Brookings assessment, Bruce Jones argues that sustaining the US role as guarantor of free navigation is becoming increasingly difficult due to expanding maritime trade, the growing ability of weaker actors to disrupt shipping, China’s naval expansion and the relative weakening of Western naval dominance. He concludes that maintaining maritime security will require new operational concepts, improved capabilities and greater burden-sharing among allies. If confirmed, a US-Iran framework agreement would mark a significant diplomatic opening after months of confrontation. However, analysts from the Atlantic Council and the Brookings Institution suggest it should be viewed less as a resolution and more as an inflection point within a shifting international system. While it may ease immediate tensions, it would do so within a strategic environment that is becoming less stable, more fragmented and increasingly difficult to manage through existing power structures. Published in Dawn, June 14th, 2026
- Security14 Jun, 23:15
ABD - İran anlaşmasına dünyadan ilk tepkiler
ABD ve İran, savaşın sona ermesi için anlaşmaya vardı. Resmi anlaşma 19 Haziran'da İsviçre'de atılacak. Bu önemli gelişmenin ardından ülkelerden peş peşe açıklamalar geldi.
- Security16 Jun, 09:53
Son dakika...ABD Başkanı Trump: İran ile başarılı bir anlaşma yaptık
ABD Başkanı Donald Trump yaptığı açıklamada "İran ile anlaşmamızı tamamladık. Başarılı bir anlaşma oldu. İkinci aşamaya geçiyoruz ki bence bu daha kolay olacak. İran'a herhangi bir yatırım yapmayacağız. Ama asla nükleer silahları olmayacak" dedi. AYRINTILAR GELİYOR
MilliyetMilliyet - Security16 Jun, 13:57
US wants to dispose of Iran's enriched uranium, not take it for itself — Trump
The US leader confirmed that Washington is closely monitoring, primarily with the help of satellite intelligence, the condition of the three Iranian nuclear facilities containing enriched uranium
- Diplomatic16 Jun, 15:37
US, Iran Prepare for Deal Signing With Both Claiming Victory
The US and Iran are preparing to formally sign their interim peace deal in Switzerland on Friday, with both sides claiming victory and oil traders and shippers unsure over how quickly the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened. The text of the so-called memorandum of understanding — a 14-point document that should lead to a two-month ceasefire extension and the start of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program — has yet to be published. A senior US official said it’s possible that happens in the next two days, ahead of the signing ceremony in Geneva. Vice President JD Vance is expected to head the American delegation, while Iran will likely be represented by Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. Josh Wingrove, Bloomberg News Senior Washington Correspondent, joins from Geneva with the latest. (Source: Bloomberg)
- Security17 Jun, 14:30
ABD Başkanı Donald Trump'tan İran'a anlaşma tehdidi: Eğer yapmazlarsa savaş yeniden başlar
ABD Başkanı Donald Trump: "Anlaşmayı imzalayacaklarını düşünüyorum. Eğer yapmazlarsa da sorun değil. O zaman süreci yeniden başlatmak zorunda kalacağız. Ama biz kaybetmeyiz. Dünyanın en güçlü ordusuna...Devamı için tıklayınız
- Security19 Jun, 12:29
ABD Başkanı Donald Trump: Netanyahu’nun biraz aklını başına alması gerekiyor
ABD Başkanı Donald Trump, İsrail Başbakanı Binyamin Netanyahu ile ilişkilerinin "iyi" olduğunu, ancak Netanyahu'nun biraz aklını başına alması gerektiğini ifade etti. Öte yandan, İran'ın askeri olarak...Devamı için tıklayınız
- Political21 Jun, 00:36
Soykırımcı Netanyahu kendisine küfür eden Trump için bakanlarından istekte bulundu: Şahsen eleştirmeyin
İsrail Başbakanı Binyamin Netanyahu'nun, bakanlarından ABD Başkanı Donald Trump'ı eleştirmemelerini istediği iddia edil...
- Security22 Jun, 02:53
Peace by piece
WITH the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran, an interim deal has been agreed. In what will be a two-step peace process the first phase freezes the war by extending the ceasefire for another 60 days. It commits Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz and the US to end its blockade. That process is already underway. But the hard part lies ahead as the second phase has to address the nuclear file and other thorny issues. If reaching a preliminary agreement proved so difficult, negotiating a comprehensive settlement will be tougher, especially with Israel’s malign presence looming in the background. After four months of war, both sides wanted an exit ramp from the fighting. President Donald Trump seemed to want it more. Domestic political and economic pressure mounted on him, especially the fear that higher oil prices and inflation would hit American consumers and damage the US economy. This, as mid-term Congressional elections loomed with an unpopular war and the Republican party increasingly divided. Moreover, continuing the conflict did not seem to bring Trump closer to any of his ever-changing objectives. If regime change was a core objective, the war failed to achieve that. More bombs would not have secured that outcome or his other stated aims. Around 40 times in 90 days Trump claimed “a deal is imminent”. This reflected his desperation for one as well as the constant effort to calm markets and drive down oil prices. The economic consequences of the Strait of Hormuz’s prolonged closure had begun to weigh heavily on Washington. Iran was prepared to play the long game, especially as its control of the Strait of Hormuz gave it crucial strategic leverage. Its retaliatory attacks on US bases and energy infrastructure in Gulf countries raised the costs of war for America, its regional allies and the global economy. Tehran used the economic weapon to full effect. But there were limits to this strategy because of the substantial losses Iran also faced. Its ailing economy came under severe stress by reduced access to oil markets, restrictions on shipping and higher inflation. Another round of war heightened the economic risks. Having attained the upper hand in the conflict, a deal made sooner rather than later made more sense when Tehran’s negotiating position was relatively strong. Iran had already emerged as a symbol of defiance. The US was unable to achieve its objectives both on the battlefield and negotiating table. The deal ending the four-month war shows the failure of military force. The war imposed by the US and Israel did not compel Iran to surrender and accept terms dictated by them. A militarily weaker country under sanctions was able to hold out because of what the US has historically underestimated — the power of nationalism. While the US waged a war of choice with unclear objectives, for Iran it was an existential challenge. The will to survive powered by nationalist sentiment proved decisive in Tehran’s ability to resist aggression. The broader question raised by this is about the limits of military power. The might-is-right paradigm is being challenged in an era where big powers can’t get their own way because modern warfare has levelled the ground between them and smaller countries. Military superiority does not guarantee dominance or victory, as exemplified by America’s operation Epic Fury, Russia’s unwon war against Ukraine and India’s aggression against Pakistan last year. Whether the tentative US-Iran truce is followed by lasting peace depends on how issues deferred to the next stage of negotiations are tackled. This involves a 60-day, extendable period to reach agreement on Iran’s nuclear programme and sanctions relief for Tehran. But before that, Lebanon remains an obstacle if Israel, opposed to the US-Iran deal, continues its military rampage there. While the MoU says Lebanon is part of the “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts”, Israel seems intent on playing a spoiler. The nuclear negotiations will of course be the key to a permanent settlement. Iran has already reaffirmed it will not “procure or develop nuclear weapons” in the 14-point MoU. The document also refers to agreement to resolve the stockpiled enriched uranium issue in the talks ahead. It holds out the option to resolve it by down-blending (diluting) the material on site under the IAEA’s supervision. This is what Iran offered all along despite Trump’s frequent declarations that the “nuclear dust” will be removed from Iran. Negotiations will also have to find common ground on the duration of a moratorium on enrichment of nuclear fuel. Sanctions relief will be tied to accord on these issues. The MoU is a testament to US inability to accomplish its objectives both on the battlefield and the negotiating table. It sets out multiple concessions that Iran secured with Washington abandoning many of its red lines. This is reflected in Trump’s defensive remarks during his press conference at the G7 meeting. Iran can keep some ballistic missiles, which he had vowed to destroy, because other regional countries have them. He also said Iran could have its own nuclear programme because “other adjoining states have it”. Iran will receive waivers for oil exports immediately after signing of the MoU and before nuclear talks begin. As for the release of billions of dollars of Iran’s frozen funds, Trump said “We have taken a lot of their money, it’s not our money” and has to be returned. But he made it clear that the funds will be released in return for “good behaviour” by Iran and implementation of the MoU. The document also sets out a pathway for substantial financing for Iran’s reconstruction. Significantly, Iran’s support for its regional allies doesn’t figure in the MoU. The deal got swift international applause. But its future remains uncertain. First comes the test of implementation. Will both sides honour the MoU? Then come the technical talks to hammer out a lasting settlement. As the gap between the two sides remains wide, negotiations may be long-drawn-out. For now, the deal has widened the rift between the US and Israel with America’s leaders rebuking the Israelis for their criticism of the agreement and Trump even taking a public swipe at Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel is already defying the latest ceasefire in Lebanon. But it is unlikely that its efforts to sabotage the interim deal will succeed. The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN. Published in Dawn, June 22nd, 2026
- Security23 Jun, 11:36
ABD Başkanı Trump: İran nükleer denetimlere onay verdi
ABD Başkanı Trump, İran'ın gelecekte en üst düzeyde nükleer denetimlere tamamen ve kesinlikle onay verdiğini belirterek, "Bu şartların ardından ben de deniz ablukasını kaldırıyorum" açıklamasını yaptı.
- Security23 Jun, 17:54
Trump: UAEA denetçileri uygun zamanda İran'a gidecek
ABD Başkanı Donald Trump, UAEA denetçilerinin İran'ın nükleer faaliyetlerini denetlemek üzere "uygun zamanda" sahada olacağını belirterek, denetim konusunda herhangi bir belirsizlik olmadığını söyledi. Trump, ABD-İran mutabakatını "çok iyi bir anlaşma" olarak nitelendirdi.
- Security24 Jun, 07:26
UAEA Başkanı İran'da nükleer denetim sürecinin başlayacağını duyurdu
Nükleer denetim adımları UAEA Başkanı Grossi tarafından tescil edildi. Trump ve Pezeşkiyan arasında sağlanan 300 milyar dolarlık mutabakat zaptı sonrasında, müfettişlerin askeri tesisler dahil uranyum sahalarına girişi kesinlik kazandı.
- Security24 Jun, 09:57
UAEA Başkanı Grossi, İran'daki nükleer tesislerin Ajans müfettişlerince denetleneceğini bildirdi
UAEA Başkanı Grossi, ABD ve İsrail tarafından vurulan İran'daki nükleer tesislerin, Ajans müfettişlerince denetleneceğini söyledi.
- Security24 Jun, 11:48
İran’dan UAEA’ya yalanlama: Vurulan tesisler için denetim planı yok
İran Dışişleri Bakan Yardımcısı Kazım Garibabadi, Uluslararası Atom Enerjisi Ajansı (UAEA) Başkanı Rafael Mariano Grossi'nin ABD ve İsrail tarafından vurulan nükleer tesislerin, Ajans müfettişlerince denetleneceği açıklamasını yalanladı.
- Political24 Jun, 16:29
US-Iran deal may leave Israel's Netanyahu as biggest casualty
The biggest casualty of the US-Iran deal may not be Israel’s Iran strategy, but the political brand Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spent decades constructing as the Israeli leader who could uniquely bend Washington to his will on Iran, analysts, former US officials and diplomats say. Netanyahu built his political identity on an audacious assertion: that he alone could keep the US and Israel in strategic lockstep on Iran. Cultivating Republican support, he cast himself as the only Israeli leader capable of influencing successive US presidents and insisted that only sustained military pressure could contain Tehran. At the height of his power, he was described by diplomats as the “American whisperer”, the Israeli leader who could pick up the phone and ensure Washington’s strategic calculus aligned with that of Israel. US President Donald Trump welcomes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the entrance of the White House in Washington, DC, the US on April 7, 2025. — Reuters/File No other Israeli prime minister, they note, addressed Congress as often or built such enduring political capital across the American political system. But analysts say Washington and Tehran’s interim pact to end the war that the US and Israel launched in February shows how that narrative has been reversed. Rather than shaping Washington’s Iran policy, Netanyahu is now forced to accept it, as US President Donald Trump pursues a settlement that increasingly treats Israeli objections as constraints. At home, the reckoning is equally stark, said former US official Dennis Ross. “Netanyahu is increasingly boxed in between a US president intent on ending the conflict and a domestic base resistant to concessions, particularly in Lebanon,” he said. Withdrawal risks political backlash, while escalation risks confrontation with Washington. The war Netanyahu hoped would cement his legacy as the leader who confronted Iran may instead be remembered as the conflict that dismantled a central source of his power. Iranian flags fly as fire and smoke from an Israeli attack on Sharan Oil depot rise, following Israeli strikes on Iran, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2025. — Reuters/File Isolated abroad, constrained by his closest ally and vulnerable ahead of an autumn election, he now finds the political asset on which he built his career has become his greatest liability. At the outset of the war with Iran, Netanyahu promised ultimate victory. He delivered neither the collapse of Iran’s ruling system, nor the defeat of Lebanon’s Hezbollah, nor a safe return for residents of northern Israel. “The US-Iran deal is a decisive blow to Netanyahu,” said Aviv Bushinsky, a former Netanyahu adviser. “Not only did he lose the war with Iran, he has also lost Trump as a friend. “He is now isolated not only internationally, but locked in a major dispute with Trump,” he added. Netanyahu’s office did not respond to a request for comment. In a press conference this month, the Israeli premier described his relationship with Trump as one between partners who “agree many times and sometimes disagree”. There had been a systematic campaign to diminish Israel’s “huge achievements” against Iran and its proxies, he said. A White House official said Trump and Netanyahu had a strong relationship and that Israel’s military forces had been “incredible partners” in a war that had “decimated the Iranian regime’s military capabilities”. Public rebukes The disagreement between the US and Israeli leaders, analysts say, extends beyond personal ties to a growing divergence in goals: Trump seeks to disengage from another Middle East war, while Netanyahu views continued pressure on Iran and its ally Hezbollah as essential to Israel’s security. Washington has negotiated directly with Tehran, folded Lebanon’s conflict between Israel and Hezbollah into a broader framework, and created mechanisms to manage ceasefire disputes, moves that, according to three regional diplomatic sources, have increasingly sidelined Israel from key decisions. The country that once viewed Netanyahu as an indispensable interlocutor is now, the regional sources say, treating him as an obstacle to an agreement it is determined to protect. Trump has publicly rebuked Israel’s military conduct in Lebanon, while US Vice President JD Vance has underscored the conditional nature of the relationship, warning Israeli critics of the deal against attacking the only powerful ally they have left in the world. Two Israeli officials familiar with Netanyahu’s thinking said he was not concerned that public remarks by Trump and Vance would translate into meaningful shifts in US policy toward Israel, such as delays in arms deliveries, even if Israel continues military operations in Lebanon. A resident flashes the V-sign for Victory as he stands on the roof of a collapsed home, destroyed in Israeli military strikes, in the southern Lebanese village of Srifa on June 24, 2026. — AFP Trump has signalled that he is prepared to override Israeli priorities in pursuit of US interests. In a TV interview this month, he said that if he tells Netanyahu to do something, “he does it”. Loss of Republican safety net Iran will seek to widen the emerging gap between the US and Israel by portraying any Israeli military action in Lebanon as an attempt to sabotage Trump’s diplomacy, forcing the White House to choose between backing its ally or preserving the deal, said Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group. What makes Netanyahu’s position so precarious, US analysts say, is the loss of his safety net. For years, he cultivated Republican backing, using it as a counterweight to offset tensions with Democratic administrations, and openly denouncing former President Barack Obama’s 2015 Iran nuclear deal from a congressional podium. But Republicans will not break with Trump for Netanyahu, they said. Against this backdrop, the implications of the US-Iran deal also extend to Netanyahu’s core strategic bets. He staked his political future on two objectives: weakening, if not toppling, Iran’s theocratic leadership and securing normalised relations with Saudi Arabia by expanding the Abraham Accords. Neither has materialised. Iranian leaders have emerged from the conflict entrenched, while the Saudi handshake remains out of reach. Across the region, a recalibration is already visible. Countries Netanyahu once hoped to draw closer with Saudi Arabia as the crown jewel are now hedging, slowing normalisation with Israel while cautiously reopening channels with Tehran. According to Gulf sources, the logic that underpinned the Abraham Accords has been eroded by the Gaza war, the unresolved question of West Bank annexation, and a growing perception that Netanyahu’s Israel may be more of a liability than an asset in any emerging regional order. An Iranian official said Netanyahu’s push to expand the Abraham Accords has been blunted, with several countries now seeking a place in an emerging Iran-aligned framework. “This is not just a victory for Iran. It’s a failure for Netanyahu,” the official said. “The Islamic Republic has not just survived, it has emerged as a more influential regional player.”
Jerusalem Post – Middle EastDawn – WorldThe Straits Times – WorldAl-Monitor – The Pulse of the Middle East+5 more sources - Diplomatic25 Jun, 04:05
Can the US and Iran work out a grand bargain?
After months of diplomacy punctuated by military strikes, the United States and Iran have stopped fighting and signed a memorandum of understanding. The technical grind of nuclear issues and the Strait of Hormuz will consume much of the 60-day period for negotiations. But the deeper question is whether durable stability is possible without addressing the regional disorder and the antagonism between Iran and Israel. A lasting settlement would require a far more ambitious grand bargain linking Iran’s nuclear constraints to a genuine security architecture — one that includes as key features a non-aggression pact between Israel and Iran on the one hand, and between Israel, Lebanon, and Syria on the other. The challenge is to build enough confidence to ensure the longer process moves ahead. This requires a shift away from coercive diplomacy and toward what negotiators often describe as a “golden bridge” — a framework that allows the parties to compromise while protecting their core interests, without humiliation or strategic vulnerability. In the first phase, Iran has agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, though it has already shown that it is highly unlikely to relinquish strategic control over the crucial waterway, much of which lies within Iranian territorial waters. The memorandum of understanding says Iran will work with Oman and other Persian Gulf states to develop a broader agreement on the management of the Strait of Hormuz, suggesting Tehran is willing to formalize shared arrangements without ceding sovereign control. Tehran recognizes that passage arrangements could generate revenue and weaken the wider sanctions regime by drawing more international actors into commercial engagement with Iran. As an incentive for Iran to alter its strategic calculations, a regional fund for humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and environmental protection of the gulf should also be created. The MoU itself points in this direction: it commits the United States and regional partners to developing a “definitive, mutually agreed plan” worth at least $300 billion for reconstruction and economic development in Iran, underlining how central economic incentives are to the bargain. We propose that, as an alternative to Iranian efforts to impose tolls on the Strait, negotiators should establish a United Nations-supervised mechanism financed through limited surcharges on all exports of oil, gas, and oil-based fertilizers passing south through Hormuz. Such surcharges would generate substantial revenues — potentially up to $80 billion annually — without significantly disrupting global markets. The costs would remain far lower than continuing instability and conflict. Both Iran and the Arab Gulf states would participate in levying the surcharges and receive the benefits of the fund under careful monitoring. An international managing agency would guard against corruption and ensure that funds don’t go toward military and weapons expenditures. The nuclear talks, meanwhile, must address Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 60%, which should be blended down to a maximum of 3.67% U-235, the necessary level for nuclear reactor fuel. Also, the International Atomic Energy Agency must secure expanded access to all sites where it has evidence of nuclear operations at undeclared locations. A regional consortium for civil nuclear energy should also be established to operate fuel-cycle activities under joint production, management, supervision, and control in Iran and participating Arab countries. Iran increasingly views its nuclear capacity as a deterrent against future attack. It may agree to dilute enriched uranium, suspend enrichment temporarily, and accept expanded IAEA inspections, but it is unlikely to accept permanent arrangements that would eliminate its civilian nuclear infrastructure. A realistic settlement must therefore recognize Iran’s right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to maintain a peaceful civilian nuclear program under strict international supervision. Negotiations should focus less on dismantlement and more on transparency and verification against cheating. The 60 days could also serve as a confidence-building phase in which both sides demonstrate sufficient good faith to engage in a far longer process ahead. The United States, traditionally a lead actor in conflict management in the region, has emerged from the Iran war having exposed the limits of its military and diplomatic power. It is now seen as an unreliable, erratic, and reckless partner; one that appears not to have adequately taken into account its Gulf partners’ security concerns or long-term interests. In this context, the role of “middle powers” has gained new relevance. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Oman, Qatar, and Egypt are emerging as both mediators and security partners. The rising influence of these states will increasingly shape conflict management and resolution in the region and beyond. If they seize this moment, they could move away from dependency on the U.S., with its military shield provided through regional bases. Gulf states have now seen how this has simply made them more vulnerable to Iranian military aggression. They could build their own regional equilibrium not through military power but a conflict resolution approach to managing some of these difficult and hostile relationships. To this end, work should now be done to establish a standing regional negotiating table, with a permanent secretariat. Arab states, Turkey and Pakistan would have a genuine stake in the survival of such a regional arrangement, making it more structurally durable than one imposed by Washington and thus vulnerable to its whims. Ultimately, Israel and Iran will need to be active participants in any regional structures, but this will take time and diplomatic tact. Neither country would agree to participate publicly at the moment, so quiet backchannels will be essential to ripen these conditions and overcome deep antagonisms. Attempting to include Israel too early risks collapsing the process entirely. Yet, without mechanisms to address Israeli security concerns, stability cannot be achieved. In the first phase, Israel will therefore have to work behind the scenes with the U.S. and encourage it to take into account Israeli concerns on enrichment levels and missile range. A change of government in Israel following the October 2026 elections could open space for a second phase of less stealthy Israel-Iran confidence-building measures, perhaps channelled through Oman, focused narrowly on preventing miscalculation. Only in a concluding phase, contingent on progress toward Palestinian statehood and Lebanese security and stabilization and Israeli security, does a broader non-aggression framework become conceivable. The current framework agreement has bought vital time. It opens an opportunity to stop this conflict, which had become repetitive and endless. The 60-day negotiation is significant as a test of whether the parties can shift from the logic of confrontation to the logic of mutual interest. That shift will not happen through pressure alone. It requires a golden bridge, one sturdy enough to bear the weight of Iranian sovereignty, Israeli security, and Gulf reconciliation. The alternative is a return to cycles of retaliation, nuclear escalation, and regional instability. The world has just witnessed those costs. The framework exists. The question is whether there is the political will to build on it.
- Diplomatic25 Jun, 08:44
Rubio: Iran deal must not contradict interests of US partners
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday that any Iran nuclear agreement must safeguard the interests of Washington's regional partners, emphasizing that Gulf security remains central to American diplomatic efforts during high-level talks with GCC foreign ministers in Bahrain's capital.
- Security25 Jun, 22:35
US seeks Iran deal, but 'not at any price,' Rubio says
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Thursday Washington would not accept any Iran deal allowing Tehran to impose fees on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, warning it would cause "total chaos." His remarks came after an attack on a vessel forced the United Nations to suspend mariner evacuation efforts.
France 24 – WorldAl-Monitor – The Pulse of the Middle EastBangkok Post – WorldBangkok Post – Most Recent+1 more sources - Security26 Jun, 08:41
UAEA Başkanı, ABD-İran mutabakatının, Ajans'a İran'daki nükleer tesislere erişim hakkı tanıdığını söyledi
Uluslararası Atom Enerjisi Ajansı (UAEA) Başkanı Rafael Mariano Grossi, ABD-İran mutabakatının kendilerine İran'daki vurulan nükleer tesislere erişim hakkı tanıdığını söyledi.
- Diplomatic26 Jun, 18:06
How to defend the Iran deal from hawkish spoilers
A whopping 78% of Americans want to end the war with Iran. The few holdouts itching for more war seem to be concentrated in our nation's capital, where Democrats, Republicans, and the op-ed class are clamoring for continued violence. These Beltway hawks are growing increasingly desperate to upend the fragile Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that represents the best available exit ramp from this reckless war of choice. This is precisely what we explore with Quincy Institute Executive Vice President and Iran expert Trita Parsi on the latest episode of Always at War. Parsi explains why Washington’s opposition to peace is shortsighted and shares the latest news from the region, where a new security architecture is forming that could make a durable Middle East peace possible for the first time in decades. Though Washington's opposition to the MoU is a bipartisan affair, Parsi is particularly disappointed in Democrats, who he says are mirroring the “very problematic, knee-jerk, bad faith” attacks Republicans leveled against Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran Deal, in 2015. Parsi’s frustration is both moral and strategic. He worries that, instead of questioning whether this peace framework goes far enough, Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are trying to undermine the very possibility of ending a war they claim to oppose. Perhaps the most striking part of the conversation isn't its exploration of the political dysfunction in Washington but rather what is happening despite it. While many members of Congress are attempting to torpedo the MoU, they can’t change the reality that something new is happening in the Middle East. According to Parsi, regional states are “openly talking about a new security architecture for the region that is no longer dependent on the United States.” A first meeting among regional leaders is already being organized in Riyadh, as multiple states have launched working groups aimed at addressing the Middle East’s most pressing issues, from the Strait of Hormuz to broader regional security. It turns out that the vast majority of Americans wanting an end to this horrific war may be getting more than a ceasefire; there's a real chance we are witnessing the early stages of a reformed Middle East that doesn't require American military dominance to hold it all together. Here's hoping!
- Security27 Jun, 07:40
Ne İran ne ABD! Savaşta kim kazandı? Büyük vurgun yaptılar
ABD ve İran arasında yaşanan çatışmanın yol açtığı ekonomik sarsıntı, küresel piyasalarda yeni kazananlar ve kaybedenler yarattı. Enerji, savunma, finans ve lojistik devleri yüksek fiyatlar ve artan talep sayesinde milyarlarca dolarlık ek gelir elde ederek savaşın görünmeyen kazananları oldu. Öte yandan ABD ordusunun İran'ın Sirik kentine düzenlediği saldırılar ile tansiyon yeniden yükseldi. Kırılgan ateşkes sürecindeki ilk ciddi kriz yaşanırken İran, “Pişman olacaklar” açıklamasıyla Washington’a rest çekti. İran yönetimi ayrıca, ABD’nin düzenlediği saldırıların varılan mutabakatın ihlali anlamına geldiğini savundu.
Okumaya devam et
ilgili gelişmeler- Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
Trump'tan İran'a Haftalık Süre: 'Anlaşmak İçin Can Atıyorlar'
ABD Başkanı Donald Trump, Rushmore Dağı'ndaki konuşmasında İran'ın anlaşmaya varmak için yoğun istek duyduğunu belirtirken, Hamaney için bir haftalık süre tanıdıklarını ifade etti. Trump, "İran anlaşmak için can atıyor. O kadar çok istiyorlar ki..." sözleriyle Tahran yönetiminin müzakerelere açık olduğunu öne sürdü. Bu açıklama, ABD'nin İran'a yönelik azami baskı politikası ve zaman zaman yükselen askeri gerilimlerin gölgesinde geldi. İki ülke arasında nükleer program ve bölgesel nüfuz konularında uzun süredir devam eden anlaşmazlıklar bulunuyor. Trump yönetimi, daha önce de diplomatik çözüm sinyalleri vermiş ancak karşılıklı güvensizlik nedeniyle somut ilerleme sağlanamamıştı. Trump'ın verdiği bir haftalık sürenin, müzakereleri hızlandırma veya İran'ı köşeye sıkıştırma amacı taşıdığı değerlendiriliyor. Tahran'dan henüz resmi bir yanıt gelmezken, bölgesel dengeler ve enerji piyasaları üzerindeki olası etkiler yakından izleniyor.
ABD3 olay6 sa önce - Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
Pakistan'ın ABD-İran Arabuluculuğu Küresel Takdir Topladı
Pakistan, ABD ile İran arasında yürüttüğü arabuluculuk sonucunda ateşkes ve kalıcı çözümün önünü açmayı hedefleyen bir mutabakat zaptı sağladı. Dışişleri kaynakları, bu tür bir arabuluculuk rolünün Pakistan'ın diplomatik tarihinde bir ilk olduğunu belirtiyor. Gelişme, uluslararası alanda takdir ve saygıyla karşılandı. Arabuluculuk sürecinin ayrıntıları henüz tam olarak açıklanmasa da, Pakistan'ın bu girişimi diplomatik nüfuzunu ve küresel imajını güçlendirdi. Tahran ile Washington arasındaki gerilimin tırmanma riski taşıdığı bir dönemde gelen bu adım, bölgesel istikrar açısından kritik önem taşıyor. Pakistan'ın, iki hasım ülke arasında iletişim kanalı tesis edebilmesi, ülkenin jeopolitik denklemdeki ağırlığını ortaya koyuyor. Anlaşmanın uygulanması ve kalıcı bir çözüme dönüşmesi önümüzdeki dönemin odak noktası olacak. Uluslararası camia, Pakistan'ın bu çabasını, nükleer silahlarla ilgili endişelerin ve bölgesel vekalet savaşlarının gölgelediği bir tabloda, diplomasi yoluyla kriz çözümüne katkı sağlayan bir örnek olarak değerlendiriyor.
ABD1 olay11 sa önce - Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
Burgenstock'ta ABD-İran Barışı İçin 60 Günlük Yol Haritası
ABD ve İran, İsviçre'nin Burgenstock beldesinde Pakistan ve Katar arabuluculuğunda gerçekleştirilen görüşmeler sonucunda, 60 gün içinde nihai barış anlaşmasına varmayı hedefleyen bir yol haritası üzerinde anlaştı. Pazar günü başlayıp Pazartesi gününe uzayan müzakereler, daha önce imzalanan İslamabad Mutabakat Zaptı çerçevesinde yürütüldü. Pakistan Başbakanı Şahbaz Şerif ve İran Cumhurbaşkanı Pezeşkiyan'ın katıldığı açılışta tarafların barışa yönelik samimiyetine vurgu yapıldı. Arabulucuların ortak açıklamasında, teknik detayların belirlenmesinin ardından nihai anlaşmaya 60 gün içinde ulaşılmasının kararlaştırıldığı duyuruldu. Mutabakat aylardır süren çatışmaları sonlandırma potansiyeli taşırken, İsrail'in "mücadelemiz bitmedi" açıklaması, ABD'deki ara seçimler ve taraflar arasındaki derin güvensizlik ateşkesin kalıcılığını tehdit eden unsurlar olarak öne çıkıyor. Eşzamanlı olarak İran ve ABD, Hürmüz Boğazı'nda askeri çatışmaları önlemek için bir iletişim hattı kurdu. ABD ayrıca Lübnan'daki ateşkesi denetlemek üzere bir mekanizma oluşturdu. İran Cumhurbaşkanı Pezeşkiyan'ın Pakistan ziyaretinde bölgesel güvenlik yapısı çağrısı ve İslam ülkeleri arasında birlik vurgusu, diplomatik hareketliliğin genişlediğine işaret ediyor. Uzmanlar ise barış sürecinin "bozguncu" aktörlerce sekteye uğratılabileceği uyarısında bulunuyor.
ABD26 olay21 sa önce - Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
Trump'ın 'Canavar' aracı NATO zirvesi için Ankara'ya indi
ABD Başkanı Donald Trump'ın resmî devlet aracı olarak kullandığı ve 'Canavar' olarak bilinen zırhlı limuzin ile konvoy araçları, Türkiye'de düzenlenecek NATO Liderler Zirvesi öncesinde Ankara'ya getirildi. Cadillac One adıyla da anılan araç, başkanlık güvenlik protokolünün kritik bir parçasını oluşturuyor. Bu transfer, Trump'ın zirveye bizzat katılacağını teyit ederken, ABD'nin lojistik hazırlıklarını gözler önüne serdi. Trump yönetiminin zirve için Türkiye'yi tercih etmesi ve ilgili hazırlıklar, Washington'ın NATO içindeki angajmanını ve Türkiye'nin ittifaktaki stratejik konumunu vurguluyor. Araç konvoyu gibi üst düzey güvenlik önlemleri, zirvenin uluslararası medya ve diplomatik çevrelerdeki yüksek profilini yansıtıyor. NATO liderlerinin Ankara'da bir araya geleceği bu toplantı, transatlantik güvenlik konuları, kolektif savunma taahhütleri ve bölgesel krizlere odaklanacak. Türkiye'nin ev sahipliğinde gerçekleşecek zirve, ittifakın güneydoğu kanadının önemini bir kez daha teyit ederken, ABD Başkanı'nın varlığı ikili ve çok taraflı diplomasi fırsatlarını da beraberinde getiriyor.
ABD5 olay6 sa önce - Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
Trump Ankara'da Zelenskiy ve Şara ile kritik zirvelere hazırlanıyor
Beyaz Saray, ABD Başkanı Donald Trump'ın Ankara'da yapılacak NATO Zirvesi kapsamında Ukrayna Devlet Başkanı Volodimir Zelenskiy ve Suriye Cumhurbaşkanı Ahmed Şara ile ayrı ayrı görüşeceğini duyurdu. Açıklama, Beyaz Saray Baş Basın Sözcü Yardımcısı Anna Kelly tarafından telekonferans yoluyla yapılan basın toplantısında geldi. Görüşmelerin, NATO müttefikleriyle yapılacak istişarelerin hemen ardından gerçekleşmesi planlanıyor. Bu temaslar, Rusya-Ukrayna savaşı ve Suriye'deki siyasi geçiş süreci gibi uluslararası gündemin en sıcak başlıklarında ABD'nin diplomatik angajmanını yansıtıyor. Ankara'da bir araya gelecek liderlerin, bölgesel istikrar ve güvenlik konularını masaya yatırması bekleniyor. Trump'ın Zelenskiy ile görüşmesi, ABD'nin Ukrayna'ya desteğinin seyri açısından önem taşırken, Suriye Cumhurbaşkanı Şara ile yapılacak ilk yüz yüze temas ise Şam yönetimiyle ilişkilerde yeni bir aşamaya işaret edebilir. Ziyaretin zamanlaması, NATO Zirvesi'nin hemen sonrasına denk gelerek ittifakın doğu kanadı ve Orta Doğu'daki meydan okumalara bütüncül bir yaklaşım sunma çabası olarak değerlendiriliyor.
ABD3 olay9 sa önce - Aynı ülke gündemicanlı
Körfez'in Güvenlik İkilemi: ABD'den Uzaklaşma Zamanı mı?
Davos'ta ocak ayında Kanada Başbakanı Mark Carney, 'orta güçlerin' bir araya gelerek büyük güçlerin baskısına direnmesi gerektiğini söyledi. Carney'nin hem Çin'e hem de ABD'ye karşı direniş çağrısı, çok kutuplu dünyaya geçiş sürecinde orta ölçekli devletlerin artan özerklik arayışını yansıttı. Bu söylem, özellikle uzun süredir ABD'yi başlıca güvenlik garantörü olarak gören Körfez ülkeleri için bir dönüm noktası niteliğinde. Körfez monarşileri, İran tehdidi ve bölgesel istikrarsızlık karşısında on yıllardır ABD'nin askeri varlığına bel bağladı. Ancak Washington'un politik öngörülemezliği ve küresel güç dengelerinin değişmesi, bu bağımlılığı sorgulatıyor. Carney'nin konuşması, Körfez'in kendi güvenlik mimarisini çeşitlendirme ve yeni ortaklıklar kurma ihtiyacını su yüzüne çıkardı. Multipolar düzene uyum sağlamaya çalışan Körfez ülkeleri, ABD ile ilişkileri korurken Çin ve Rusya ile derinleşen ekonomik ve diplomatik bağlarını nasıl dengeleyeceklerini tartışıyor. Bu stratejik ikilem, bölgenin gelecekteki güvenlik düzenlemelerini şekillendirecek temel unsur olarak öne çıkıyor.
ABD1 olay10 sa önce