When Trump and Netanyahu launched the initial military campaign on February 28, the objective was explicitly stated: the complete destruction of Iran\u2019s nuclear and ballistic missile programme, an end to Tehran\u2019s support for regional proxies such as Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas \u2013 and regime change. But the text of the MoU reveals a profound pivot from those aims, at least as far as the White House is concerned.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the agreement marks the final collapse of Pax Americana in the Persian Gulf region and highlights the resilience of Iranian state sovereignty against external pressure. At the onset of the war, both Washington and Tel Aviv projected absolute confidence in their military capabilities. <\/p>\n
Following initial waves of brutal strikes and a campaign involving more than 900 targets, both leaders repeatedly asserted that the Islamic Republic\u2019s military capabilities were fundamentally broken.<\/p>\n
Trump regularly claimed that victory was just around the corner<\/a>, maintaining \u2013 erroneously \u2013 that Iran had \u201cnothing left in a military sense\u201d. Weeks into the campaign, he declared that the US military would \u201cdestroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground\u201d until it was \u201ctotally\u201d, again, obliterated. <\/p>\n Promising the Iranian public that their rulers would soon be gone, Trump insisted he was successfully steering the country toward \u201cregime change\u201d. As the first strikes landed on Iran, he called on the people to rise up and seize control of institutions. Netanyahu echoed these exact sentiments, framing the conflict as a definitive campaign to forcibly reshape the geopolitical architecture of the region.<\/p>\n But intelligence assessments and events on the ground quickly exposed these claims as foolish. Despite severe structural damage, Iran retained its strategic depth, adapting by moving equipment and launching retaliatory drone and missile strikes across the region. <\/p>\n Rather than causing the regime to collapse, the external aggression resulted in a hardening of the state structure.<\/p>\n The terms of the MoU<\/a> demonstrate that Washington was ultimately forced to negotiate with Tehran as an equal sovereign power, rather than a defeated adversary accepting terms of capitulation. <\/p>\n The agreement directly contradicts the initial war aims of the US-Israeli coalition across three major pillars. First, the framework explicitly binds the US to respect Iran\u2019s territorial integrity and abstain from internal interference. <\/p>\n For an administration that spent months demanding regime change, this clause serves as a legal acknowledgment of the Islamic Republic\u2019s permanence. It calls to mind the Algiers accords of 1981<\/a>, when the US agreed to the unfreezing of Iranian assets and non-intervention in Iran\u2019s affairs in return for 52 American hostages held since the revolution in 1979.<\/p>\n Faced with the reality of an intact Iranian government, Trump reversed his rhetoric at the G7 summit. Claiming that \u201cI never cared about regime change\u201d, the US president pivoted to describing the new Iranian negotiators as \u201crational, strong, and smart\u201d.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The MoU also mandates the immediate lifting of the US naval blockade and the implementation of emergency Treasury Department waivers to allow the resumption of Iranian crude oil exports. It also signals the unfreezing of up to US$100 billion (\u00a375 billion) in restricted Iranian assets and the creation of a $300 billion international reconstruction fund for economic development. <\/p>\n From a critical perspective, this demonstrates that economic blockades are ultimately unsustainable when met with asymmetrical regional deterrence. Again, this should not have been new to the US government \u2013 it\u2019s something that we have researched and written about for years<\/a>.<\/p>\n As I argued as early as in 2011 on a flagship show on Al Jazeera<\/a>, sanctions, gunboat diplomacy and even war don\u2019t work. Iranian society is too connected and the economy and the state too agile. And, as we now know, Tehran\u2019s threat to close down the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway, should have been seen by Iran\u2019s adversaries as a potent deterrent. Hopefully, decision-makers will learn their lessons from this ill-fated war.<\/p>\n Indeed, perhaps the most notable aspect of the MoU is what it leaves out. There is no mention of Iran dismantling its ballistic missile programme. Nor is there a requirement for Iran to sever ties with its regional proxies. Additionally, the ceasefire explicitly covers \u201call fronts,\u201d effectively mandating a halt to hostilities in Lebanon \u2013 a point of major friction for the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has vowed to maintain an Israeli security zone in the south.<\/p>\n So this deal indicates a structural shift in regional politics. By launching a high-intensity campaign and failing to achieve either the destruction of Iran\u2019s military capabilities or the toppling of its government, the US and Israel have inadvertently demonstrated the limits of their military power. No propaganda by lobbyists and diasporic pro-war monarchists can change the hard truths of scientific inquiry. <\/p>\nWhat\u2019s in the deal<\/h2>\n
Geopolitical shift<\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/277523\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n