Curse of the century? How US-Iran deal handed Tehran a Middle East win
(Photo credit: AP) From regime change to regime survival The Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s new leverage Israel isolated, Gulf states uneasy When the United States
(Photo credit: AP) From regime change to regime survival The Strait of Hormuz: Iran’s new leverage Israel isolated, Gulf states uneasy When the United States and Israel struck Iran in February, plunging the Middle East into one of its most dangerous crises in decades, the objective was clear: cripple Tehran's power and force the Islamic Republic onto the back foot.Months later, after thousands of deaths, soaring energy prices and one of the largest military confrontations the Middle East has seen in decades, Iran remains standing — and may have emerged with a stronger hand than before.What MAGA are calling the “deal of the century” may look very different from the capitals that have spent years trying to contain Iran. The interim agreement signed by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has halted the devastating three-month war but many analysts see something else emerging: a stronger, more legitimate Iran.The 14-point agreement grants a 60-day window for negotiations on a permanent settlement while preserving the ceasefire in Iran and Lebanon.
For Tehran, it offers the prospect of renewed oil exports, economic recovery and international recognition after surviving one of the most intense military campaigns in its modern history.One of the most striking consequences of the agreement is that it appears to legitimise the very system that many of Iran’s opponents hoped to dismantle.Reuters reported that Israeli analyst Danny Citrinowicz described the deal as a strategic “catastrophe”, arguing that a campaign intended to weaken Iran had ended with Washington effectively recognising and strengthening the Islamic Republic. Critics note that the agreement contains no clear restrictions on Iran’s missile programme, its regional allies or a definitive roadmap for dismantling its nuclear infrastructure.That assessment echoes a broader argument made in Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs analyses. Iran entered the war in a weakened position, facing economic crisis, domestic unrest and military pressure. Yet despite the assassination of senior leaders and months of conflict, the regime survived. The expected uprising never materialised, and Iran’s security establishment consolidated power rather than collapsed.If the war changed one strategic reality, it may be the perception of Iran’s influence over the Strait of Hormuz.Foreign Affairs argues that Tehran’s greatest post-war asset is no longer its missile arsenal or nuclear programme but its ability to threaten disruption in one of the world's most important maritime chokepoints.
The BriefWire