Interim US-Iran Deal Leaves the Thorniest Issue Still to Be Negotiated: Tehran’s Nuclear Program

A view of Milad Tower, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
A view of Milad Tower, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
TT

Interim US-Iran Deal Leaves the Thorniest Issue Still to Be Negotiated: Tehran’s Nuclear Program

A view of Milad Tower, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters
A view of Milad Tower, in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2026. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via Reuters

The interim deal between the US and Iran is supposed to usher in a two-month period that would address the most divisive issue between the longtime adversaries — Tehran's nuclear program.

Preventing Iran from attaining a nuclear bomb is a key reason that President Donald Trump said he launched the war alongside Israel in February, but the tentative agreement he has trumpeted leaves little runway to negotiate the long-running sticking point. The previous nuclear pact between Iran and world powers, which Trump pulled the US from in his first term, took many months to negotiate.

Few details have been publicly released about the initial deal, set to be officially signed Friday in Switzerland, but it generally calls for reopening the Strait of Hormuz to global oil shipments, financial incentives for Iran if it meets certain benchmarks, and a 60-day period for talks on ending the country's nuclear program.

There is deep skepticism among both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, pro-Israel advocates and Israel itself that the deal is realistic, workable or would have any effect on nuclear talks.

“My skepticism is Iran itself. What would a good deal look like? No enrichment. And we’ll see if we can get there,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a close Trump ally and longtime Iran hawk, said Tuesday. “But whether or not we can get phase two, I don’t know.”

A nuclear deal takes commitment to the details

David Schenker, director of the Arab Politics Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that “this administration has proven that it has a hard time keeping its attention on these issues.”

Schenker, who served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs in the first Trump administration, questioned whether the current administration would have the wherewithal to reach a nuclear deal even if the agreement is signed Friday.

“This is the kind of thing that requires dogged attention, attention to detail and numerous technical experts involved,” he said. “Trump loses his attention, moves on, and so does the administration. It’s like they don’t understand Iran’s strategy. They didn’t get it the first time, or the second.”

The Trump administration has maintained its confidence. Vice President JD Vance said much of the technical detail must be negotiated but that the US must see action for Iran to receive incentives like sanctions relief.

“Our plan under this deal is, again, the Iranians are getting a lot of benefits so long as they dismantle that nuclear weapons program,” Vance told Megyn Kelly on her podcast Tuesday.

“People always ask me, ‘Why do you believe it this time?’ I don’t believe them,” he added. “I don’t trust anything that anybody says. I trust what people do. And the way this deal is structured is that as they do more, they receive more. As they do less, they receive less.”

Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is peaceful.

It took over a year and a half to get the previous nuclear deal

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, took more than 18 months to negotiate, starting with secret talks between US and Iranian officials in Oman at the end of then-President Barack Obama’s first term.

They required dozens of direct high-level interventions from Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, not to mention a team of dozens of technical experts traveling to Europe and elsewhere before the conclusion of the negotiations in Vienna, Austria.

Trump withdrew from the JCPOA in 2018 before most of its more contentious concessions had come into effect, and there is no indication now that Iran is willing to offer much more.

The JCPOA relied on very technical language and understandings, including limits on uranium enrichment, advanced centrifuges and heavy water production. In exchange, Iran was granted significant sanctions relief, amounting to billions of dollars.

As unhappy as critics were about the JCPOA — Trump called it the “worst deal ever negotiated,” while all Republicans and a number of prominent Democrats voted against it — all sides acknowledge it took more than 18 months to get to an even imperfect agreement.

Republicans say Congress must approve any deal

Republicans say any nuclear deal with Iran should be brought to Congress, as required by law. GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said he “would certainly anticipate that” the Senate will get the final say.

GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said he had little confidence Iran would abide by any agreement.

But Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., one of a handful of senators who has spoken to Vance about the agreement, said the shortened timeline could be an advantage.

“Iran’s modus operandi is to negotiate for the purpose of delaying, so they can rearm themselves,” Marshall said. “I think the president has to give them some type of a finite amount of time, or there’s going to be consequences. So I think it can be done.”

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., noted that what could help Trump’s negotiators to hammer out a nuclear agreement in such a truncated timeline is that there is “a base" to work from following the Obama-era talks.

Still, the JCPOA "took years to put together. You had allies and even adversaries — China and Russia — around the table, you had the IAEA at the table, the Obama chief negotiator had a Nobel Prize in physics, Ernie Moniz,” Kaine said. “I don’t know that either Jared Kushner or Steve Witkoff have a Nobel Prize. So it’s going to be hard.”

Trump envoys Witkoff and Kushner, neither of whom had any prior experience in nuclear negotiations, made numerous but ultimately unsuccessful attempts to reach an agreement under Omani mediation during the first months of Trump’s second term.

Those tapered off after the US-Israel attacks on Iranian nuclear sites in June 2025 after which Pakistan emerged as the main facilitator.

There also is uncertainty about other issues besides nuclear that have been of concern to Arab countries, Israel, Europe and the United States.

It is not clear that any of those issues, including Iran’s ballistic missile program, its support for armed proxies in the region or repression of its own people, will be addressed by either the interim or potential longer-term agreements.

Without significant capitulations by Trump up-front, it is hard to imagine that nuclear negotiations with Iran will take only several months.

“A deal is better than more fighting, but the war America and Israel prosecuted against Iran has fallen short of achieving its stated objectives,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute. “This agreement is mostly about cleaning up an unnecessary mess and putting the best face on it.”



What to Know About China’s Rare Ballistic Missile Test and Why It Raises Concerns

 In this photo released by Xinhua News Agency, a long-range ballistic missile bursts out of the sea during a test launched from a Chinese nuclear-powered submarines in the South Pacific on Monday, July 6, 2026. (Li Xiangchao/Xinhua via AP)
In this photo released by Xinhua News Agency, a long-range ballistic missile bursts out of the sea during a test launched from a Chinese nuclear-powered submarines in the South Pacific on Monday, July 6, 2026. (Li Xiangchao/Xinhua via AP)
TT

What to Know About China’s Rare Ballistic Missile Test and Why It Raises Concerns

 In this photo released by Xinhua News Agency, a long-range ballistic missile bursts out of the sea during a test launched from a Chinese nuclear-powered submarines in the South Pacific on Monday, July 6, 2026. (Li Xiangchao/Xinhua via AP)
In this photo released by Xinhua News Agency, a long-range ballistic missile bursts out of the sea during a test launched from a Chinese nuclear-powered submarines in the South Pacific on Monday, July 6, 2026. (Li Xiangchao/Xinhua via AP)

China's navy test-launched a long-range ballistic missile Monday from a nuclear-powered submarine — a move that experts said showed Beijing's increasing skill and capability as part of its nuclear deterrence strategy.

The move also drew protests from the US, as well as countries in Asia and the Pacific. It was the second time China had fired a ballistic missile into international waters in recent years.

While it gave some countries in the region prior notice, some said it was not enough notice, and experts say the launch exacerbates tensions around increasing militarization in Asia.

Here's what we know, and what we don't, about the missile launch.

Experts think it could be a JL-2 or a JL-3 ballistic missile

China announced the missile test publicly on Monday only after the launch, saying that it was fired into the Pacific Ocean. In a brief statement, the official Xinhua News Agency said the launch was part of routine annual training, complied with international law and practice, and was not directed against any country or target. It didn't provide details about the type of missile.

The missile was carrying a dummy warhead, not a nuclear one. The act of launching in international waters was rare, although the US has also done so with its own missile testing.

Xinhua published a photo of the missile on Tuesday without additional details. Experts say it could be either a JL-2 or a JL-3, both submarine-launched ballistic missiles, though most said the available imagery was not clear enough to tell.

The state-owned tabloid Global Times said it was “most likely” a JL-3 missile with a range exceeding 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles). The JL-2 has a shorter range.

The New Zealand government said the missile was launched into treaty waters in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, violating the intention of the agreement.

The zone was established by the 1986 Treaty of Rarotonga, which prohibits nuclear weapons throughout the region. China ratified the protocols in 1987, pledging not to test nuclear weapons within the zone or threaten to use them against signatories with territory in the region.

Australia, Japan, and other countries protest While China has told other countries to “avoid over-interpretation” in response to the criticism, experts say the concerns from other countries have some basis.

Much of the concern is a result of lack of clear information, said Drew Thompson, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore. “China’s military modernization and buildup have occurred without concurrent increases in openness and transparency, resulting in uncertainty about China’s intentions.”

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that China did not provide enough notice to the government.

“There is no doubt that this is a provocative act by China which does destabilize the region,” he told reporters Tuesday while in Honiara, in the Solomon Islands.

“This was a test of a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile fired from a nuclear-powered submarine. That is of real concern because what we need is less nuclear weapons, certainly not more. And the fact that this test took place yesterday with very little notice is of real concern,” Albanese added.

New Zealand had said the same Monday, with Foreign Minister Winston Peters calling it “unwelcome and concerning.”

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale, also speaking to reporters in Honiara Tuesday, said that “China is a good friend of Solomon Islands, but this is not something a friend does. This is not ... good in our region.”

“We don’t want to see any more countries — China, America, anybody — we don’t want anybody testing their ICBMs in the Pacific Islands region. Be our friend, but don’t threaten us,” Wale added.

Test comes amid increasing militarization in Asia

China's leader Xi Jinping has made modernization of the People's Liberation Army a top priority in his rule.

China already has the largest standing army in the world and the world's largest navy. While its nuclear arsenal lags that of the US and Russia, it has been actively expanding its stock of nuclear warheads. It has also actively been developing new longer-range missiles and advanced drones.

China’s defense budget, which is projected to be at $270 billion in 2026, has grown at roughly 7% for the past four years, and hovers below 2% of its gross domestic product. However, independent analysis suggests the real spending could be much higher. For example, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates the overall figure for 2024 at $313.7 billion.

Much of the security worries about whether or not China's military would get involved in a war centers on Taiwan, the self-ruled island that China claims as its own and for which it has not ruled out the use of force to bring it under its control.

China also regularly sends warplanes and navy ships in the waters around the island in what it says are military exercises.

In response to China's expanding military and activity, countries in the region have increased their own defense spending, including Japan which is breaking with its long-held cap of 1% of GDP to double the budget to 2%.

Meanwhile, the Philippines agreed to allow the US to expand its military presence in the country by adding access to four more bases.

“The Chinese launch exacerbates already deeply strained relations between Beijing and Tokyo. Since (Prime Minister Sanae) Takaichi’s comments last year suggesting that Japan would engage in a conflict over Taiwan, China has tightened export controls on Japan and accused it of embracing a ‘new time of militarism,’” said Emma Chanlett-Avery, director of Political-Security Affairs at the Asia Society Policy Institute.


Lebanon’s South Takes a Breath as Families Return to Shattered Homes and Lives

This picture shows the destruction in the southern Lebanese village of Froun on June 30, 2026. (AFP)
This picture shows the destruction in the southern Lebanese village of Froun on June 30, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Lebanon’s South Takes a Breath as Families Return to Shattered Homes and Lives

This picture shows the destruction in the southern Lebanese village of Froun on June 30, 2026. (AFP)
This picture shows the destruction in the southern Lebanese village of Froun on June 30, 2026. (AFP)

On a beachfront in the coastal city of Tyre, war has finally abated just enough for children to play in the waves and families to gather under parasols as life slowly returns to southern Lebanon. But away from the shore, people coming home after months of exile are having to adapt to harsh new realities: the threat of conflict between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah flaring up again and the challenge of rebuilding from the destruction Israeli bombs have wreaked on their hometowns.

"People are coming back to Tyre to rebuild, to work — all the restaurants are open again," said local resident Ali Skaiky, wet from a swim in the sea and holding a rubber lilo.

"We still hear strikes and fighting at night, but it's far away. There's destruction beyond imagination, but we hope everything will stay calm."

Skaiky is among some 400,000 people who have returned to southern Lebanon in the weeks since a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. The truce has not halted fighting, but it has lowered the ‌intensity.

Returnees are cleaning ‌debris from damaged homes, reopening businesses and trying to rebuild the routines the war ‌shattered. Yet ⁠for many, normality ⁠now means keeping a suitcase packed, following the news obsessively and never straying too far from home.

For Fadlallah Qassim, 42, returning home meant confronting the destruction the war had left behind, including a hit on his house.

"We returned to find the whole house caved in with rubble, and all the furniture ruined," he said. "I cleaned up, fixed it, and brought some basic things for the house, now my wife, children and I all live in one room."

In the nearby village of Srifa, where entire neighborhoods were damaged, Suzan Fakih, 55, said the hardest part of returning was realizing home no longer felt like home.

"The moment you arrive, it doesn't ⁠feel like your village anymore," she said. "Everything is black and grey. It hurts your soul. ‌You look around and think, 'This can't be the village I've lived in all ‌my life.'"

'YOU PACK YOUR BAGS AND RUN'

Srifa lies in the deep south of Lebanon, close to where Israeli troops occupy a strip ‌of territory and launch regular attacks on what the Israeli army says are Hezbollah targets. In areas nearby, Israel has ‌demolished almost entire villages.

Fakih said people remain haunted by the possibility they could be forced to flee again.

"I can't remember a time in my life when I wasn't living with a bag packed, ready to leave. A few quiet years pass, then you pack your bags and run again," she said.

The ongoing hostilities and levels of destruction have left 600,000 more people internally displaced, according to Lebanon's social ‌affairs ministry. Many families whose homes were destroyed are still living in schools or in the rented homes they fled to during the conflict.

Lebanon has suffered the deadliest spillover ⁠of the regional war triggered ⁠by the US-Israeli strikes on Iran in February.

The conflict spread to Lebanon on March 2, when Hezbollah fired on Israel in support of Tehran, triggering an Israeli air and ground campaign. More than 4,300 people have been killed in Lebanon, according to the country's health ministry.

RENTING BACKUP HOMES

Some 20 miles (32 km) farther north, Mohammad Sweid and other residents who recently returned to the Bekaa Valley town of Sohmor, said they live with the same uncertainty.

Sweid still pays rent for the house he and his family fled to during the war, keeping it as a backup home if they need to leave again.

"If something happens again, we may not find another place," the 31-year-old manual worker said.

In the Lebanese capital Beirut, whose Hezbollah-controlled southern suburb of Dahiyeh has been battered by Israel at intervals over the last two years for being home to Hezbollah's leadership, residents are also cautiously trying to rebuild their lives.

Moussa Ghamloush, 68, has been repairing his bomb-damaged home and reopening his restaurant, which was completely destroyed in a separate strike, but says his permanent home will always be Dahieh.

"We're not the kind of people who leave. Our roots are here. We stayed, and if there's a third war, we'll stay again."


Trump Won Big Spending Promises from NATO Last Year. This Week in Türkiye, He'll Try to Enforce Them

US President Donald Trump speaks during the Salute to America 250 celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC, USA, 04 July 2026. EPA/JIM LO SCALZO / POOL
US President Donald Trump speaks during the Salute to America 250 celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC, USA, 04 July 2026. EPA/JIM LO SCALZO / POOL
TT

Trump Won Big Spending Promises from NATO Last Year. This Week in Türkiye, He'll Try to Enforce Them

US President Donald Trump speaks during the Salute to America 250 celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC, USA, 04 July 2026. EPA/JIM LO SCALZO / POOL
US President Donald Trump speaks during the Salute to America 250 celebration on the National Mall in Washington, DC, USA, 04 July 2026. EPA/JIM LO SCALZO / POOL

President Donald Trump got what he wanted from NATO at last year’s summit: an alliance whose members had largely acceded to his demands to step up their defense spending.

This week when he meets leaders in Türkiye, his mission is to enforce that pledge, The Associated Press said.

The speed with which most NATO countries have tried to heed Trump’s call to spend 5% of their annual gross domestic product on defense over the next decade underscores how the US president has reshaped the alliance and bent it to his will — even as he continues to spar with its members over the Iran war, his flirtation with annexing Greenland, and various personal tiffs.

“President Trump fully expects that all allies will step up immediately and get on the path to 5% and do it with urgency,” Matt Whitaker, the US ambassador to NATO, told reporters in a preview of the administration’s message before this week’s summit in Ankara.

Trump leaves Monday evening for the summit, and for days leading up to the trip has been airing grievances about how much the US spends on defense compared with other countries. That’s despite efforts from Mark Rutte, the alliance’s secretary-general, who tried to feed the ego of the tempestuous US leader in an Oval Office meeting last month. There, he displayed large charts on easels showing what he called “ The Trump Trillion ” — how much allies had boosted their spending commitments since 2017.

Luke Coffey, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think thank in Washington, described the Ankara gathering as the “first report card” after last year’s summit in The Hague.

“If NATO members play their cards right — if the leaders show up demonstrating a commitment and a reasonable plan to meet these spending targets — then it’ll allow President Trump to take a victory lap,” Coffey said.

Trump will meet with Ukraine's Zelenskyy Trump left last month’s G7 summit in France buoyed by support from his counterparts for his interim agreement to end the war with Iran. He praised unity among leaders — who also worked to bring Trump onside to boost security assistance for Ukraine in its fight with Russia.

That war, now in its fifth year, is expected to be a key focus at the Ankara summit. The White House said Trump will meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday. Trump spoke with both Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin on July 4.

Trump also plans to meet on the sidelines of the summit with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa. The White House has not provided goals for that discussion, but it comes as Trump has publicly mused about Syria playing a bigger role fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon. Al-Sharaa has said he has no interest in doing so.

The US president also plans a separate meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the host of the summit whom Trump counts as a close friend.

But he has no bilateral meetings planned with other leaders. Despite the positive tone of the G7 summit, Trump resurrected feuds as soon as he returned stateside.

He proclaimed that Keir Starmer would resign as British prime minister before the embattled leader made it official, arguing that Starmer “failed badly” on immigration and energy. Meanwhile, Trump asserted that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni had begged him for a photo, prompting a ferocious denial by her and the cancellation of a US visit by the country’s foreign minister.

Despite the fallout, Trump egged it on further on Sunday when he posted a photo on social media of Meloni smiling at him, along with the words “RESTRAINING ORDER NEEDED.”

Trump has remained on tense terms with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and while French President Emmanuel Macron charmed Trump with a lavish dinner at the Palace of Versailles last month, it hasn’t always been smooth between the two leaders.

Aware of those tensions, a bipartisan group of senators is again headed to the summit this year, trying to represent the broad support for the alliance on Capitol Hill and to serve as a counterweight to Trump’s often caustic attitude toward NATO.

“They are our best allies, they are our best trading partners, they are critical to our national security, to our economic success, and we need to encourage those relationships,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who is leading the delegation to Ankara. “That’s part of what Congress understands that the administration doesn’t seem to.”

Trump’s team is making the case for more NATO changes

The summit comes as Trump’s administration makes the case for what it calls “NATO 3.0,” which envisions an alliance that has Europe taking on more of its security needs, allowing the US to shift its focus elsewhere.

The strategy was outlined by Elbridge Colby, a US undersecretary of defense, earlier this year at a gathering of NATO defense ministers.

Then, in a scathing speech to other NATO defense ministers last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth added to the pressure by announcing that the US will conduct a six-month review of its forces in Europe. This surprised countries in the alliance that had anticipated coordinating with the Trump administration through the transition.

Trump himself sparked much confusion earlier this year when he seemed to send conflicting signals on the issue, announcing that he would send 5,000 US troops to Poland weeks after ordering the same number of forces pulled out of the continent.

Shaheen said the NATO 3.0 concept “fails to understand -- as this administration has consistently failed to understand -- the threat that Putin and Russia are to Europe and subsequently to the United States.”

Europe is boosting spending, but still counts on the US

The US president last year was the driving factor in a broad target reached in The Hague for NATO countries to spend 5% of their GDP on defense over the next decade.

Of that, 3.5% would be for core defense spending and the rest would be related expenses, such as infrastructure. Spain said at the time that it couldn’t meet those levels, and some others have voiced reservations about the ambitious goal.

Despite the increased pledges and spending, experts say many parts of the continent are nonetheless reliant on the US for their defense should they come under attack. The defining feature of the NATO alliance is the view that an armed attack on one member is an attack on all.

“This is the reality for most Europeans,” said Liana Fix, senior fellow for Europe at the Council on Foreign Relations. She said most are far from being able to defend themselves without the United States, “even if they’re starting to develop all that.”

Apart from the spending pledge, NATO has worked to accommodate Trump in other ways.

The alliance earlier this year introduced “Arctic Sentry,” a NATO-led military exercise aimed at countering Russian and Chinese activities in the region. It’s also meant to address Trump’s repeated threats to seize Greenland, since the Republican president has insisted the US needs to acquire the semiautonomous territory of Denmark for strategic security reasons.