Yossi Cohen argues that the Iran ceasefire/understanding is not good because it leaves too many capabilities unresolved, especially ballistic missiles and nuclear-related activity. He says Israel and its partners should not trust Iran, believes regime change cannot be imposed from outside, and defends the Mossad’s long-running penetration of Iran that enabled the nuclear archives operation.
Watch on YouTube ›Get the market thesis, key claims, assets, contradictions, and follow-up questions from any financial video — then unlock a version personalized to your portfolio, watchlist, and favorite speakers.
This is a geopolitical interview with Yossi Cohen, former Mossad director, focused almost entirely on Iran, the ceasefire/accord with the United States, and Israel’s intelligence operations against Iran. Cohen’s core thesis is blunt: the agreement is incomplete and, in its current or near-final form, is not good enough because it does not sufficiently constrain Iran’s ballistic missile program and broader covert behavior. He repeatedly says Iran cannot be trusted and argues that any durable settlement must include nuclear and missile restrictions, not just a narrow pause or partial understanding. He frames the current situation as a temporary ceasefire, not a final peace. In his view, the next 60 days matter because that is the window in which negotiators are supposed to move from discussion to a fuller agreement. …
Near term, the key risk is an incomplete Iran agreement that leaves ballistic missiles or covert activity unaddressed. That would keep geopolitical premium and regional security tension elevated.
Over the next few months, the setup hinges on whether the final deal expands to include missile constraints and stronger verification. If it does not, the market should treat the ceasefire as a pause rather than a resolution.
Structurally, Cohen’s view implies a lasting Middle East regime of persistent Iran risk, where containment depends on intelligence, regional defense coordination, and verification rather than trust. The implication is that diplomatic breakthroughs are fragile unless they change Iran’s underlying capabilities and incentives.
The US-Iran interim agreement is not a good deal because Iran cannot be trusted and will continue to hide nuclear, ballistic, and terrorist activities.
Cohen states the deal is bad based on his experience with Iranian deception; he argues Iran will keep lying about nuclear, ballistic, and terrorism activities.
The final comprehensive agreement within 60 days must include Iran's ballistic missile program, otherwise it will be a failure.
Cohen argues ballistic missiles threaten not just Israel but also UAE, Bahrain, and Oman, so leaving them out renders the deal a failure.
The 2015 JCPOA was a bad deal because it left Iran with significant nuclear and ballistic capabilities.
Cohen, who served as Israel's special envoy to the P5+1 negotiations, asserts the JCPOA left Iran with too much capability.
Que pensez-vous de l'accord de fin de guerre entre les États-Unis et l'Iran, qui est critiqué en Israël comme un échec stratégique majeur car il n'aborde pas le nucléaire iranien ?
Yossi Cohen pense que l'accord n'est pas bon. Il dit qu'il ne fait pas confiance aux Iraniens du tout, et que l'Iran va garder une partie de mensonge énorme pour cacher ses activités concernant le soutien au terrorisme, le programme balistique et le programme nucléaire. Il estime que le programme balistique doit faire partie de l'accord, sinon c'est un échec.
Est-ce que l'accord JCPOA de 2015 n'était finalement pas un bon accord quand on voit ce qui se passe actuellement ?
Non, ce n'était pas un bon accord selon Cohen. Il faisait partie de la délégation israélienne et était contre cet accord parce qu'il a laissé les Iraniens avec une grande partie de leurs capacités nucléaires et balistiques. Il pense qu'il faut vérifier pendant les 60 jours à venir que tous les programmes balistiques et nucléaires seront couverts.
La fin du régime iranien était un des objectifs d'Israël — est-ce donc un échec à l'heure actuelle ?
Cohen répond qu'il n'a jamais pensé qu'on pouvait changer le régime de l'extérieur. Il dit que seul le peuple iranien peut effectuer un changement de régime, pas Israël ni les États-Unis. Bien que les attaques israéliennes en Iran aident, le peuple iranien n'est pas sorti dans les rues car le régime est toujours là, affaibli mais toujours présent et menaçant son propre peuple.
Unlock the full claims, asset map, scores, related transcripts, follow-up questions, and AI chat — shaped around your portfolio, watchlist, favorite speakers, and risks.
