A Ceasefire, But the Hard Work Begins
What Iran and US get – Over 100 days into the conflict between the US and Iran, both nations now assert triumph. This moment marks a pivotal shift, as the war’s immediate violence has paused, leaving behind a fragile truce. While the deal is hailed as a breakthrough, the real test lies ahead—negotiations that will determine its long-term viability. Public narratives on both sides frame the agreement as a success, yet domestic skeptics question whether sufficient compromises were made.
The Deal’s Dual Objectives
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, outlines a 60-day roadmap for resolving Iran’s nuclear program. However, its immediate impact extends beyond diplomacy. It secures a halt to military actions across all fronts, including Lebanon, reaffirms mutual respect for sovereignty, and reinstates Iranian access to the Strait of Hormuz. The US naval blockade is also set to be lifted.
Iran’s Strategic Gain
For Iran, the agreement provides more than a temporary peace. It allows the Islamic Republic to assert that it has not only endured the conflict but emerged with its leadership intact and its bargaining power preserved. Tehran’s primary aim was never a military victory but to ensure its survival without capitulation. By securing a ceasefire, the regime can frame itself as a resilient force in the region.
US Commitments: A Broader Vision
The US’s obligations under the MOU appear more extensive. Washington pledges to remove its naval blockade, issue waivers for Iranian oil exports, and release frozen assets. Additionally, the agreement sets the stage for easing sanctions and a $300bn regional reconstruction initiative. These promises aim to address Iran’s economic struggles and rebuild trust, though their implementation remains uncertain.
The Unspoken Challenges
Despite the agreement’s immediate benefits, its long-term success hinges on unresolved issues. The future of Iran’s enriched uranium program, the size of its nuclear infrastructure, and the restoration of damaged facilities will be tackled under intense scrutiny. This creates a dilemma: concessions on nuclear matters might be seen as a defeat by hardliners, while rigid stances could risk the ceasefire’s collapse.
“I am not a diplomat,” said Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliamentary speaker and lead negotiator, on state television. “But I know well how to make America understand.” His defiant rhetoric underscores the pressure on Iran’s negotiators to satisfy Washington without appearing to compromise the leader’s core principles.
A Delicate Balance
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has adopted a measured stance, endorsing the MOU while reserving his authority. By allowing Pezeshkian’s government to take responsibility for defending Iran’s interests, Khamenei maintains a strategic distance, preserving his ability to critique the deal if it fails. This delicate positioning may limit the room for flexibility in future talks, as the leadership seeks to reconcile public expectations with internal dissent.
