Former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney questioned how a U.S.-Iran peace deal could function without the signature of Israel.
Mulvaney's skepticism highlights the geopolitical tension surrounding regional stability, as any agreement excluding a primary regional adversary may lack the permanence required for lasting peace.
Speaking in an interview with Sky News Australia, Mulvaney said that the public and the media have not seen the actual text of the proposed agreement. He said the current state of information is based on rumors because the documents remain private.
Mulvaney suggested that the arrangement might not be a comprehensive treaty. He said the possibility of the deal is, at best, a 60-day [1] wait-and-see period.
He further argued that for a peace deal to be effective, it would likely require a broader scope. Mulvaney said that one would think Iran would want to have some sort of universal agreement for peace in the region.
Without Israel's participation, Mulvaney said he doubted that a sustainable peace could be secured. He said that the lack of transparency regarding the deal's specific terms makes it difficult to determine the actual viability of the plan.
“At best a 60-day wait and see period.”
The skepticism from a former high-ranking official suggests that any bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Iran may be viewed as a tactical pause rather than a strategic resolution. By emphasizing the necessity of Israel's signature, Mulvaney underscores the belief that regional security is indivisible and that a deal excluding key stakeholders may be unable to prevent future escalations.
