Analysis || US-Iran deal: Who is the real winner despite the ceasefire?

❐ International Desk

---

After months of conflict in the Middle East, the United States and Iran have reportedly reached a framework agreement that includes a 60-day ceasefire and plans to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil supply route for the world.

The announcement comes as the US president celebrates his 80th birthday. The deal is set to be signed in Switzerland on Friday, but many questions remain unanswered.

Analysts say it is not a real deal, but rather a vague framework for further negotiations. Whether the two sides have actually agreed on the same thing will be clear only at Friday’s signing ceremony.

Key terms and ambiguities of the contract

According to reports, the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened to shipping, and oil prices have already started to fall as a result. The United States will lift its naval blockade of Iranian ports, although it is still unclear whether Iranian oil will be able to return to the international market.

There is a big difference in the statements of the two sides. Iran claims that it will jointly manage the Strait of Hormuz with Oman, but the US statement makes no mention of this. Similarly, there has been no assurance from the US about the release of about $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets and the easing of sanctions.

More importantly, Iran says its nuclear program will not be a topic of discussion in this framework agreement, but rather will be discussed in the second phase. Although the United States has stated from the beginning that stopping Iran’s nuclear program is the main goal of the war, yesterday’s announcement made no mention of the nuclear program.

The agreement also did not impose any conditions on Iran’s ballistic missile program or relations with regional allies, such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthis.

Another major point of contention is the Lebanon issue. Iran says a ceasefire must also stop Israeli attacks on Lebanon, but the US statement does not mention this and Israel has publicly rejected this demand, both with new attacks on the ground and through official statements.

Current situation compared to February: Why Iran is ahead

According to analysts, in late February, two days before the war began, talks were being held in Oman between the foreign ministers of the United States and Iran. On the table were strict restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, discussions on its ballistic missile program, and relations with regional allies like Hezbollah. The Strait of Hormuz was naturally open at that time.

After three and a half months of war, the only agreement reached was to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. But this time, Iran would have a significant stake in controlling the waterway. Iran’s nuclear program was not halted, its ballistic missile program was not negotiated, and no concessions were made on relations with regional allies.

In this context, analysts believe that despite suffering heavy economic losses and attacks on its leadership (including the killing of several top officials, including the Supreme Leader), Iran is in a stronger political position than before the war began, as it maintains its influence over a key route for world energy trade and has been able to create a divide between the United States and its Gulf allies.

This is why the analysis sees Iran as the relatively profitable party in this agreement, although it is a reminder that no one really wins in any war. The toll shows that nearly 3,800 people have been killed in Lebanon since the beginning of March and more than 3,000 in Iran since the end of February. In addition, many Israeli soldiers and civilians and 13 US service members have also lost their lives.

Diplomatic and political damage to the United States

In the US context, the administration initially aimed to establish military dominance over Iran, completely halt its nuclear program, exert direct influence without forcing Iran into negotiations, and strengthen Israeli-Arab relations by expanding the regional Abraham Accords.

But after three and a half months, the US’s achievements include a rise in gasoline prices in the country, which is politically sensitive ahead of the upcoming congressional elections; serious strained relations with Gulf allies; and a failure to demonstrate dominance on the world stage.

The report says that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are now unwilling to move forward with the normalization process with Israel, while only the United Arab Emirates is still willing to work with the United States on this path. As a result, it is believed that the overall US Middle East strategy has effectively collapsed.

There is also an economic dimension. The US president’s family’s business interests are involved in billion-dollar projects in the Gulf region, particularly in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. It is believed that the strained relations with Saudi Arabia and Qatar could also affect these economic interests.

Israel’s reaction and internal pressure

Israel’s reaction is not yet entirely clear. There has been no direct statement from the head of government, but the agreement has been criticized from within the government as a failure and a bad deal for Israel and the entire free world.

On the other hand, a government minister for national security stressed that the US agreement does not obligate Israel and that Israel is not a subordinate party to the US.

The Defense Minister made it clear that Israel will not withdraw from the security zones established in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. It also stated that the infrastructure it calls terrorist outposts in the areas adjacent to the Lebanese border will be destroyed and that civilian residents there will not be allowed to return.

It also said that Israel reserves the right to attack again if Hezbollah does not stop its attacks. According to the report, Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon have continued despite the announcement of the agreement.

Notably, sources close to the Israeli government are blaming the US president’s two envoys for this bad deal, alleging that they became too close to Qatar and accepted the deal under the influence of Qatar, which is the mediator in the negotiations.

Notably, the fact that the families of these two ambassadors have financial interests in Qatar is also being discussed in Israel. According to analysts, this is a political warning signal, without being a direct criticism of the president, that if their hands and feet are tied in carrying out further attacks against Hezbollah, there will be political repercussions.

Israel is due to hold elections in October and the current prime minister is seeking re-election. Internal critics say none of the stated goals, such as regime change in Iran, dismantling its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, or reducing the influence of regional allies, have been achieved.

However, while there was broad Israeli support for the attack on Iran at the beginning of the war, public fatigue has set in due to the long conflict.

The Gaza issue and the expansion of the occupation

Analysts note that beyond the ceasefire talks, Israel is continuing to expand its control of Gaza and Lebanon. It now controls about 60 percent of Gaza and wants to increase that to 70 percent.

They also aimed to establish an occupation zone in Lebanon at least 10 kilometers deep from the border. Their main concern now is that the US administration may withdraw support for their efforts and try to prevent them from launching new attacks on Beirut.

International response and Europe’s role

This initiative has been welcomed by the international community and hopes have been expressed that it will be permanent, as the conflict is also having an impact on the global economy and is affecting every country in the world.

Analysts say a key test here will be Europe’s response. The Strait of Hormuz was open before the war, but after the war it has effectively fallen under Iranian control. European powers have refused to bail the United States out of the problem, angering the administration.

The question now is whether European countries will deploy naval forces alongside the US military if Iran continues to jointly operate the Strait of Hormuz with Oman, or will they stay away, which would send a further message of isolation for the US.

Overall, questions still remain whether the parties in Switzerland on Friday will actually agree on the same deal, whether it will clarify ambiguities regarding the Strait of Hormuz, Iranian assets, sanctions and the nuclear program, and whether Israel will adhere to this framework on the Lebanon issue.

According to analysts, while Iran’s position appears to be relatively advantageous politically based on the current situation, the future of the agreement depends on whether this framework actually translates into a viable agreement and what Israel actually does on the ground.