Israeli hardliners – Israeli right-wing figures who backed escalation against Iran say a looming U.S.-Iran memorandum would undo the war’s purpose. They argue the United States is ending pressure on Iran—allowing Tehran access to the Strait of Hormuz and shielding it from sanction
On the eve of a U.S.-Iran memorandum meant to “end hostilities,” Shimon Riklin sounded shaken by the idea that the conflict’s logic is being walked back.
The agreement—planned for signing on Friday—has been described as a stopgap. Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz. an access point that was already open before the war began. and it would agree not to develop nuclear weapons. In return, the United States would end its blockade of Iran, end sanctions on the country, and help facilitate reconstruction.
For Riklin. one of the anchors of Israel’s Channel 14—known for a right-wing slant and a strong pro-Netanyahu line—the deal is not a pause. It’s a reversal. In his view. it represents a climbdown by the Trump administration that both American hawks and Israelis across the political spectrum have harshly criticized. because the terms are seen as more favorable to Iran than the 2015 nuclear deal negotiated by former President Barack Obama and later torn up by Trump during his first term.
The political pressure inside Israel is part of what makes the moment sharper. The current deal also creates “real difficulties” for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. who encouraged Trump to start the conflict and was planning to flaunt his closeness to Trump in his reëlection campaign later this year.
Riklin, who said he has condemned Trump’s Iran deal as “total surrender,” framed the emotional shock as a betrayal of the war’s stated aims. “Totally shook,” he said. “Totally shook. Unacceptable. Amazing. Nobody understands this.”
He laid out two core reasons Israel and the United States fought: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. and preventing the development of missiles that could hit not only Israel. but also Europe and the United States in the future. His description of Iran’s alleged intent was stark—an effort to encircle Israel with “fire,” and enemies “around us.”.
But Riklin’s question was the one he kept returning to: if that was the purpose, why fight at all when this is what Trump would deliver?
He argued that Israelis are grateful to Trump for other forms of support during the conflict. “He gives us a lot of weapons,” Riklin said. He also described Trump’s political value to Israel as creating resistance space “in terms of the political resistance we face in the world.”
Then he shifted to a language of existential threat. Iran. he said. is “modern-day Germany. Nazi Germany.” He described what he believes Iran’s threat amounts to. saying. “They want to rule the world.” And he cited a demand tied to religion and violence: “If you don’t become Muslim. we will kill you!”.
After October 7th, Riklin said Israel tried to “gain back deterrence” and to break what he called the “Axis of Resistance.” In his telling, Trump’s approach is doing the opposite.
Riklin pointed to what he described as a double standard: “Trump said to stop the war in Lebanon,” he said, adding, “Today, an Israeli soldier was killed by Hezbollah.” In his account, “They are allowed to fire on us, but we are not allowed to fire on them.”
He also pushed back against a narrower blame narrative—who started the war and who failed to dislodge the regime. Riklin said the sequence led to a deal because Iran, he argued, “hold[s] the entire global economy hostage,” producing “horrific effects all across the world.”
He rejected the idea that planning could have been missing, asking a blunt question: “If this is what you are going to do, don’t start the war. Don’t do it.”
Riklin went further, insisting that a plan existed to replace the Iranian regime. “There is—not was, is—a very good plan to replace the regime,” he said. He refused to give a precise certainty but described what he called a likely range. When asked about figures. he said: “I speak with people of a very high rank in Israeli defense. ” adding that they spoke of a “seventy- or eighty-per-cent chance” to replace the Iranian regime if Trump allowed militias from Iraq to invade Iran.
He clarified the militias in question as “Kurdish militias,” while saying “Not only.” He said Israel could provide them with weapons, framing this as part of the plan.
Riklin then described a point of tension with Trump’s decisions. In his account, Trump said the Kurds didn’t want to fight. Riklin said that was not the real issue: “But, really, Trump is the one who forbade them from fighting, because Erdoğan put pressure on him not to do it.”
Riklin described the early war phase as shocking for Iran and said Israel had “a brilliant plan” and “spent a lot of money.” But he returned to the same accusation: the chance was blocked after Israel invested in it. “Because you prevented the militias from acting,” he said, “and now you ask why the regime didn’t fall.”.
He also argued that the same pattern played out beyond Iran. In his list—“In Gaza. In Lebanon. In Syria. In Iran.”—Riklin said Israel’s goals were prevented. and that the war should have been launched with clarity about what would be pursued. “If you go to war, and you define the goal of the war, do it. If not, don’t do it.”.
To Riklin, the most dangerous part is not merely pausing pressure—it is giving in to demands made by Iran. He warned of an escalation scenario if Iran is emboldened by concessions. “Then tomorrow. they might say. ” he said. “If you don’t close the Embassy in Jerusalem. we will close the strait. Then what do you do?”.
He accused Israel and the United States of missing a decisive moment while Iran exploited access to global trade and leverage. When pressed about reports concerning Netanyahu telling Trump that Iran would not close the strait. Riklin called those reports “absolutely nonsense.” He said Israel had taken the possibility into account and argued that “Everyone in Israel knew this was a possibility.”.
Riklin also said that stopping the nuclear program or missiles would not be enough in his view. “If you want to win in Iran,” he said, “it isn’t enough to stop the nuclear program or missiles. You need to change the regime.”
He tied that back to the plan he said Israel brought: planning for a broader outcome, not just technical restrictions. Yet, he said, “We missed the opportunity,” while also claiming that “Israeli intelligence knew everything.”
At the center of the fight over this deal is a bargaining exchange that Riklin framed as brutal. When he acknowledged that the strait was closed and the global economy was “hold[ed]” hostage, he immediately tested the moral logic of the swap. “So, it’s your money or your life?” he said.
He then made his comparison: “Let’s make peace with Hitler, because the goal of the world is money?” The point, for him, is that the world’s priorities are being set in a way that rewards coercion.
Even as he criticized the numbers, he acknowledged expectations that the economic outcome would be smaller. “Even in Israel, we thought it would be a hundred and fifty dollars per barrel of gas,” Riklin said. “It isn’t.”
But he returned to a values argument rather than a purely financial one. “Money is very important. ” he said. arguing that it enables “a good life.” Then he insisted the stakes are bigger than economics: “But. listen. it’s not all about money. It’s not all about money in our life. Money is very important. It enables a good life. Wonderful.”.
That mix—gratitude for battlefield support paired with fury over what the memorandum promises to change next—may explain why the deal is landing as more than policy. For Riklin. it is an overturning of decisions that were justified as existential. leaving Israelis and supporters of escalation asking what. exactly. war was meant to achieve.
Israeli hardliners Shimon Riklin Channel 14 Trump Iran deal memorandum of understanding Strait of Hormuz nuclear weapons blockade end sanctions end Netanyahu reelection campaign