US-Iran: Reported peace deal sparks both relief and anger
A peace deal between the US and Iran is due to be signed this week — and while the hopes of peace may yet be
A peace deal between the US and Iran is due to be signed this week — and while the hopes of peace may yet be dashed, the news alone was enough to trigger celebrations, backlash and political infighting on both sides. Top US and Iranian officials are due to fly to Switzerland this week and sign a framework authorizing "the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts," according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. The official ceremony is scheduled for Friday. US President Donald Trump echoed Sharif's announcement this weekend, saying a deal to end the war had been reached. Iranian officials signaled cautious support but stopped short of fully embracing all reported details. Iran-US peace deal leaves many major issues unresolved To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video It's worth noting that Trump's previous outpourings of optimism repeatedly ended in disappointment, and the latest peace proposal may also fail before ever reaching the signing stage in Switzerland. Many of its alleged terms remain unclear and politically contested, and even if Tehran and Washington verify it on Friday, the framework reportedly leaves crucial questions — including the dispute over Iran's nuclear program — to be resolved in the 60 days following the signing ceremony. Conflicting narratives from the start US and Iranian sources have given competing narratives of what the agreement actually contains. Iranian semi-official and allied media circulated what they described as a 14-point draft memorandum, including an end to fighting across all fronts, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days, partial sanctions relief, access to frozen Iranian funds and two months of follow-up negotiations focused on the nuclear issue and sanctions. These details have not been independently verified. Iranian state television treated the announcement as a diplomatic success. Iranian hard-liners, however, moved quickly to attack the deal, arguing that it gives away leverage without securing enough in return. Ultraconservative critics see the arrangement as an unacceptable climbdown, while government supporters insist it preserves core red lines and prevents a wider disaster. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi recently urged media outlets not to speculate about the contents of the memorandum while the process was still underway.
Trump reposted Araqchi's message on social media and described it as "very positive," reinforcing the impression that both sides wanted to signal positive momentum without fully disclosing the final text. What do the US and Iran stand to gain? Babak Dorbeiki, a London-based political analyst and former official at Iran's Strategic Research Center, said the deal appears to offer each side some immediate tactical benefits while pushing the harder issues further down the road. Pakistan, US, Iran signal deal to end war close To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video "The main advantages for Iran are an end to the US naval blockade, short-term relief for oil sales and a written American statement respecting Iranian sovereignty," he told DW. Dorbeiki said Tehran may also view the arrangement as a way to for the regime to preserve domestic legitimacy by showing it did not fold under pressure. But he also pointed to Iran's pain points. The version of the deal presented by the Americans seems to imply a far stricter outcome on the nuclear row, including the removal of enriched material and long-term monitoring, while Iranian messaging suggests enrichment itself may survive in some form. Dorbeiki said those two narratives do not sit easily together. For Washington, Dorbeiki said, the gains are different. A ceasefire would end a costly military operation, reduce pressure on global energy markets and potentially secure more on the nuclear issue than a narrower arms-control framework would have delivered. But he also warned that the US still faces verification problems, internal political divisions and resistance from pro-Israel forces unhappy with any arrangement that leaves Iran's wider regional posture untouched. Israel is not a party, but it could shape the outcome One of the clearest limits of the agreement is that Israel is not formally a party to it, even though it is deeply affected by the deal. That matters because some of the most sensitive regional conflicts, especially in Lebanon, depend heavily on the moves taken by Israel. Dorbeiki described this is one of the deal's structural weak points. In his view, Washington may be prepared to accept a framework that reduces immediate risk and restores maritime stability, while Israel may continue pursuing unilateral operations in Gaza, Lebanon or Syria if it believes the agreement does not sufficiently address its concerns.
The BriefWire