The signing of a comprehensive peace agreement between the United States and Iran has already been hailed as a historic breakthrough.
The Price of Immediate Peace: What the Sides Actually Signed
To grasp the depth of the problem, we must set aside the emotional rhetoric and examine the dry provisions of the draft published by Iran’s Mehr news agency. The agreement immediately halts military action on all fronts, including Lebanon, and reopens the Strait of Hormuz.
That sounds like a victory for common sense. But the key details of this document paint a different picture. The United States commits to withdrawing troops from areas around Iran, fully lifting the naval blockade, and—most tellingly—suspending sanctions on Iranian oil sales, while also granting Tehran access to its frozen assets.
But the most striking element is the price Washington agreed to pay for silence. Article Seven provides for the development of reconstruction plans for Iran worth no less than $300 billion. Three hundred billion! This is not just economic aid. This is an unprecedented package that amounts to compensation for a war that Iran, in the view of many analysts, could not have won militarily. Tehran, with a military capability dwarfed by that of the U.S. and its allies, managed to impose its own negotiating logic on its adversary. The Iranian leadership secured the lifting of the blockade and massive financial infusions without yielding on any key strategic issues.
A war that lasted just over three months ended not in capitulation, but in a strategic parity, as Ahmed Kandil writes in his analysis for Al-Ahram. The United States, with overwhelming military superiority, could not translate that into a political outcome. That is the main lesson of this agreement. But that is also the main problem: the document codifies a status quo in which the weaker player reaps huge dividends simply for its ability to create threats, while the stronger player is forced to pay for the restoration of its own shipping lanes.
The Great Omission: What the Deal Leaves Unsaid
The most alarming aspect of this agreement is not what it includes, but what it leaves out. The U.S.-Iran deal is a monumental monument to diplomatic evasion. Look at Article Thirteen of the draft: discussions of Iran’s missile program and its support for resistance groups are permanently removed from the agenda of future negotiations. This is not an oversight. It is a conscious capitulation to Tehran’s demands.
The ballistic missiles that Iran has actively developed in recent years—and which pose a direct threat to Israel and U.S. bases in the region—remain untouched. Financial and military support for Hezbollah, the Houthis, and pro-Iranian factions in Iraq and the Gaza Strip continues in full force. Iran’s decades-long strategy of proxy warfare, which has destabilized the Middle East, is not merely preserved—it is legitimized by the agreement. As Patrick Wintour astutely observes in his analysis for The Guardian, support for Hamas, the Houthis, and Hezbollah will remain part of Iran’s security strategy, though perhaps no longer at its center. But who will believe that such support will diminish when the entire text of the agreement screams of Iran’s victory?
Furthermore, the document says nothing about regime change—something many in Washington once sought. There are no demands for the release of political prisoners. The issue of human rights in Iran, long a moral compass for U.S. foreign policy, has been entirely bracketed out.
But the most glaring omission concerns Lebanon and Israel. Under the deal, the ceasefire in Lebanon, which ensures Hezbollah’s protection, became an integral part of the memorandum. Israel, whose government has publicly expressed displeasure with the terms, has found itself hostage to the U.S.-Iranian bargaining. Tel Aviv, according to The New York Times, is deeply concerned about the lack of clear answers regarding enriched uranium stockpiles and Hezbollah’s future actions along its northern border. Prime Minister Netanyahu—whom Trump called a “very tough guy”—is now in a political bind: his ally has signed a deal with the enemy that leaves that enemy with missiles and allies at Israel’s doorstep.
A Nuclear Time Bomb Ticking
The nuclear issue is the heart of the conflict, and here the agreement shows its most dangerous ambiguity. The U.S. and Iran have agreed to hold negotiations within 60 days to reach a final nuclear accord. Iran reaffirms its commitment to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and pledges not to produce nuclear weapons. But how will this be verified?
The United States, it appears, has abandoned its earlier ultimatum: to ship all uranium stockpiles out of Iran and ban domestic enrichment. Now a compromise is being considered, under which uranium enriched to 60 percent could be diluted inside Iran to the civilian level of 3.67 percent. In essence, Tehran retains its enrichment infrastructure and technology. And technology, as we know, is easily “rolled back.”
Trump hinted to The New York Times that he might agree to a fifteen-year moratorium on enrichment. Had such a position been taken earlier, Wintour writes, the war might have been avoided. But that admission comes too late. Iran has already demonstrated that it can withstand military pressure and economic coercion, and now it comes to the negotiating table from a position of strength, not weakness. The sixty-day period is not a calm diplomatic window—it is a race against time in which Iran holds all the cards.
The Future of the Strait of Hormuz: A Hidden Mine
On the surface, reopening the Strait is an unalloyed boon for the global economy. Oil prices fell below $84 a barrel, Bitcoin surged, and markets breathed a sigh of relief. However, a small but ominous formulation was added to the text at the last moment. A reference was included to the “future management of maritime services” by Iran and Oman.
What does that mean? Analysts fear that after 60 days of “free navigation,” Iran and Oman may claim the right not merely to offer but to impose paid services on vessels. Mehdi Mohammadi, an adviser to Iran’s lead negotiator, has already signaled: “The navy will do what it does now. We provide services: security, navigation, and protection. Clearly, services are not provided for free anywhere in the world.” According to him, only Iran and Oman have the right to collect these fees.
This turns the Strait of Hormuz from an international waterway into a toll-controlled zone under Iranian authority. In effect, Tehran gains a legitimate lever of pressure on global trade—one it previously possessed only illegitimately (through the threat of military blockade). The future governance of the strait remains unresolved, and Oman’s role will be pivotal. Britain has already called Muscat, recognizing that the fate of shipping will be decided there. This is not an unblocking—it is a restructuring of control.
Where This Deal Leads: Three Scenarios
What, then, is the bottom line? Is this agreement doomed? Not necessarily. It could mark the beginning of a new era, but for that to happen, the U.S. and its allies would have to acknowledge their own mistakes. For now, we see three possible paths.
First, the optimistic—but unlikely—scenario. The sixty-day nuclear negotiations succeed, Iran faithfully curbs its enrichment, and the $300 billion in investment triggers a process of economic liberalization inside the country that gradually moderates its international behavior. This scenario requires faith in the goodwill of a regime that has thus far used diplomacy to buy time.
Second, the most probable scenario. The agreement turns into a prolonged freeze. Iran gets its money and sanctions relief but continues its missile program and proxy support. The U.S. pretends the monitoring process is working. Israel, feeling betrayed, sooner or later launches a preemptive strike. And then we see a second round of war—but this time with a more desperate and technically equipped Iran. Netanyahu, finding himself in a political corner, may take that step precisely because the agreement leaves his country exposed.
Third, the cynical scenario. The Trump administration, criticized for a “defeat” (despite its loud rhetoric about being the “guardians of the Middle East”), uses the breather to regroup. But time is working against Washington. The longer the peace holds, the more Iran’s economy recovers under the protection of a deal that the U.S. president has claimed as his own achievement.
The signed U.S.-Iran agreement is not the end of the story. It is the opening of its most dangerous chapter. It demonstrates that military might without strategy is worthless—but it also proves that diplomacy without guarantees is worse than war. Iran declared victory without conceding almost anything. The U.S. paid $300 billion and opened the strait, receiving only a promise to talk about the nuclear bomb later. If the Geneva talks collapse within sixty days, the world will witness not a triumph of diplomacy, but its bankruptcy. And then, for Trump’s slogan “Let the oil flow,” Iranians may end up paying a bloody price.
Viktor Mikhin, writer and Middle East expert
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
