A preliminary ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran has paved the way for an immediate end to a four-month regional war that drew in Israeli forces and threatened to destabilise the wider Middle East. Structured as a memorandum of understanding, the deal was brokered with the assistance of Qatari and Pakistani mediators and is expected to be formally signed in Switzerland.
The agreement essentially looks at de-escalation, the lifting of blockades and the restoration of key trade routes. On the flip side, it has deliberately ignored, perhaps as a diplomatic ploy, some of the most contentious issues that fuelled the conflict in the first place.
The most important negotiating point of the agreement is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Before the conflict, nearly a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies passed through the narrow waterway. Under the agreement, the strait is expected to reopen within 30 days under arrangements overseen by Iran.
In return, Washington has agreed to remove its naval blockade of Iranian ports, unfreeze Iranian assets and allow Tehran to resume oil exports to global markets. For Iran, whose economy has been battered by sanctions and war, the restoration of oil revenues and access to frozen funds could provide a much-needed economic lifeline.
The ceasefire extends beyond the Persian Gulf. Military operations are to cease on all fronts, including Lebanon, where Israel has been conducting deep military incursions against Hezbollah. As a result, Israel will be required to suspend operations against the Iran-backed group, a provision that is likely to prove controversial within Israeli political and security circles.
While the agreement ends the fighting, it leaves the underlying disputes untouched. Instead, it establishes a 60-day deadline for Washington and Tehran to negotiate a comprehensive treaty covering Iran's nuclear programme and the future of its enriched uranium stockpiles.
Many foreign policy experts are sceptical that such a complex agreement can be reached within two months. They point out that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) required years of negotiations involving large teams of diplomats, scientists and technical experts. The new MoU also avoids two of the issues that have long concerned both Washington and its regional allies: Iran's ballistic missile programme and its support for proxy groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis.
The agreement has split opinion sharply across the United States. Key Trump allies have praised the deal as a major strategic success and the start of a new chapter for the Middle East. They have also hailed the dropping oil prices as an immediate windfall for American consumers. Republican allies argue that the forthcoming negotiations could ultimately impose stricter limits on Iran's nuclear activities than those contained in the Obama-era JCPOA.
Critics, however, see the agreement very differently. Democratic lawmakers have denounced it as a costly strategic failure. Representative Seth Moulton described it as a "surrender document" to Iran's leadership, arguing that the United States spent an estimated $100 billion and lost 14 American lives only to secure the reopening of a waterway that had been functioning before the conflict began. Several analysts share this assessment, contending that Tehran successfully leveraged its ability to disrupt global commerce to secure sanctions relief and economic concessions.
The reaction in Israel has been even more hostile. The widely read Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot labelled the agreement a "Bad Deal". Israeli leaders had hoped that military pressure would eliminate Iran's nuclear ambitions, weaken its missile capabilities and potentially destabilise the regime itself. Instead, the agreement leaves all three objectives unmet.
More troubling for Israeli policymakers is the perception that they were largely sidelined during the negotiations. The deal underscores a widening gap between American and Israeli priorities. While Trump sought a rapid end to the conflict ahead of US midterm elections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu favoured continuing military operations.
The tensions became evident during the final stages of negotiations when an Israeli airstrike on Beirut yesterday killed three people. The attack angered Trump, who sharply criticised Netanyahu and briefly delayed the signing process.
Ironically, one of the key outcomes of the ceasefire is that Iran appears to have come out politically stronger despite suffering crippling losses. Notwithstanding a brutal US-Israeli military campaign and the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whose son Mojtaba stepped in to succeed him, the regime survived and showed that it could still hit back.
Even hardline figures within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, including commander Ahmad Vahidi, ultimately accepted the agreement. Their calculation appears straightforward: sanctions relief and renewed oil revenues offer a chance to stabilise the economy and strengthen the state without requiring Tehran to abandon its core nuclear positions.
As the 60-day negotiating window opens, the spotlight is moving from the battlefield to the diplomatic arena. Whether the United States and Iran can build a lasting settlement on the foundations of a fragile ceasefire remains deeply uncertain.
