As the Kyiv Post analyzes in an opinion piece, the US-Iran deal has exposed the transactional nature of American foreign policy. On June 19, the US and Iran signed a memorandum ending more than a hundred days of war. Iran’s Supreme Leader was killed in the initial strikes, 13 American soldiers died, and Washington expended a significant portion of its precision munitions. The result: the regime in Tehran remains intact, its power strengthened, and central questions about the nuclear program were postponed rather than resolved.
Israel’s Fury and Washington’s Response
Israel reacted with outrage. US Vice President JD Vance, however, publicly dismissed Israeli criticism, telling the leadership in Jerusalem to “wake up and smell the reality of their own isolation.” This shows how Washington treats allies who oppose a deal desired by Donald Trump: they must fall in line. Israel is considered the partner most deeply integrated into the US security architecture — built over seven decades, supported by a bipartisan consensus. If even this relationship is overridden when it stands in the way of a Trump deal, every other partner must ask: What makes you different?
Ukraine: Weaker Position than Israel
Ukraine lacks 70 years of institutional depth with Washington, no domestic lobbying apparatus of comparable weight, and a security partnership built quickly under war pressure, not over decades. If Jerusalem is told to accept conditions it rejects, Kyiv’s bargaining power in future talks is even weaker. Critics of the Iran deal — including from Trump’s own party — called it one of the worst foreign policy outcomes of his presidency. Unresolved issues include uranium enrichment, the fate of existing stockpiles, and whether Lebanon and Hezbollah would be covered by the terms. What is delivered, instead, is the appearance of a solution: Trump signed the framework agreement over dinner with French Emmanuel Macron at Versailles and declared the war “over.”
Europe as a More Partner
The article argues that Europe should not be seen as a fallback if Washington’s commitment wanes. Europe is the more enduring strategic partner because European security guarantees do not depend on the electoral cycle of a single transactional president. NATO Article 5, EU accession frameworks, and bilateral defense agreements with individual European states are embedded in legal and institutional structures that outlast a change of government. Washington’s commitment to Ukraine, by contrast, currently runs through the preferences of one man and his evolving understanding of a good deal.
Source: www.kyivpost.com
