The payoff for the US is unclear. As former US president Barack Obama recently said<\/a>, it is \u201cdoubtful that any agreement that arises is going to be significantly different, or represent a significant improvement from the deal\u201d that Obama himself oversaw in 2015. <\/p>\n Iran\u2019s closure of the strait gave it the leverage to secure concessions from Trump \u2013 potentially exceeding the Obama-era nuclear deal \u2013 without offering more on the nuclear question than it had tabled in Geneva days before the war began in February. Even senior Republicans such as Senator Bill Cassidy have lamented the deal for its financial incentives<\/a> to the Iranian regime. <\/p>\n Within 72 hours of the MoU, Iran\u2019s military command claimed<\/a> to have closed the Strait of Hormuz once again. This was no surprise. It is indicative of an emboldened Iran that is flexing its leverage \u2013 leverage Trump\u2019s deal has inadvertently produced.<\/p>\n Iran has absorbed enormous punishment, survived and is now dictating the terms of the ceasefire by dangling the constant threat of economic misery in front of Trump\u2019s face. This is not a foundation for a stable settlement. In fact, it signals a serious loss of control for both the US and Israel.<\/p>\n Iran\u2019s justification \u2013 Israeli strikes against Hezbollah \u2013 for wreaking economic havoc and holding global energy markets hostage illustrates the structural flaw at the heart of Trump\u2019s approach to deal-making. Iranian officials have explicitly said<\/a> that the \u201cmost important item\u201d on their agenda is preventing further Israeli strikes in Lebanon.<\/p>\n Iran\u2019s strategic logic is unambiguous. Every time Israel retaliates against Hezbollah, which it is both legally entitled and politically compelled to do, Iran holds the global economy hostage via the Strait of Hormuz.<\/p>\n This places Israel in an impossible position. It cannot permanently suspend its right to self-defence as a condition of a US diplomatic agreement. It is hard to see Israel\u2019s security cabinet accepting a framework in which Iranian-backed forces in Lebanon can attack their territory with impunity, because the consequences of retaliation lead to increased pressure on global oil markets and American inflation figures. <\/p>\n As Israel\u2019s minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir put it<\/a>: \u201cIsrael is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign nation.\u201d<\/p>\n This is not a viable and sustainable strategy of deterrence. It is brass-necked coercion dressed up as diplomacy.<\/p>\n For Trump, the domestic arithmetic is equally unstable. While he insists that his deal has delivered everything it set out to achieve, by his own admission<\/a>, he also stated at the recent G7 summit in France that he \u201cdidn\u2019t want to see an economic catastrophe\u201d. It would certainly not improve his party\u2019s prospects in the upcoming midterm elections in November. <\/p>\n It is a frank acknowledgement that his decision-making was driven by the perception that continued military pressure was producing diminishing returns. The decision to stop fighting had ceased to be a strategic choice. It was the result of an American president who no longer believed he could act with complete control.<\/p>\n The problem is that the deal does not restore that agency in a meaningful way. Iran has now demonstrated to itself, to its regional partners, and to the world that it can act belligerently and still negotiate from a position of strength.<\/p>\n What is currently happening can be best described as a cycle: Israeli military action in Lebanon, Iranian threats to close the strait, US pressure on Israel to stand down, and Israeli resistance to doing so. Each iteration of this cycle will intensify the narrative that restraint is no longer a viable course of action \u2013 for Israel, for Trump\u2019s domestic base, and for the Gulf states who have felt the brunt of Iranian drone attacks.<\/p>\n Despite the destruction of most of Iran\u2019s military capabilities, infrastructure and political leadership, Iran remains determined to change the order of things in its region. Its foreign policy behaviour is driven by a combination of revolutionary ideology<\/a>, a deep mistrust of the US, and a religiously guided identity as a self-appointed protector of the Shia Islamic world.<\/p>\n Nothing in the last four months has given Tehran reason to revise that worldview. Quite the contrary.<\/p>\nVicious cycle<\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/286185\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n