Even if Iran benefits from this deal with Washington, any peace is likely to be temporary | Sina Toossi
The regime has learned it must extract concessions rather than promises from the US, but any permanent deal still depends on ending the war in
The regime has learned it must extract concessions rather than promises from the US, but any permanent deal still depends on ending the war in Lebanon To understand why Iran agreed to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the United States to end the war, one must first understand how Iranian leaders believe they emerged from the war itself. For Iran’s leadership, this conflict did not begin with military strikes.
It was the culmination of a years-long campaign of sanctions, covert operations, assassinations, economic pressure, and efforts to weaken and ultimately overthrow the Islamic Republic. Even episodes of domestic unrest, including the anti-government protests that culminated in the deadly January crackdown, are often understood in Tehran as part of this broader struggle. That worldview has profoundly shaped how Iranian decision-makers interpret both the war and its aftermath.
This perception is critical to understanding the confidence now evident in Tehran. The objectives of the war were hardly a mystery. A week into the war, Donald Trump demanded Iran’s “ unconditional surrender ”. Both Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu openly called for regime change. The destruction of Iran’s missile capabilities, the dismantling of its regional influence, and the capitulation or collapse of the Islamic Republic were repeatedly presented as desired outcomes.
None of those objectives were achieved. Sina Toossi is a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, where his work focuses on US-Iran relations, US policy toward the Middle East and nuclear issues Continue reading...
The BriefWire