Bowen: US-Iran Deal Raises Inescapable Question of What the War Was For

The memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran outlines the political, military, and economic ramifications of the recent conflict, with significant implications for both nations.

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been signed between President Donald Trump of the United States and President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran, detailing the political, military, and economic consequences stemming from the controversial decision to attack Iran on February 28.

The human toll of the conflict is already evident, with thousands of individuals, including many civilians, losing their lives in Iran and Lebanon.

The United States, alongside its ally Israel, has experienced a strategic setback. The Iranian regime, initially facing the threat of a joint military campaign aimed at crippling or destroying it, has not only survived but has gained strength.

Iran's strategy of obstructing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage for one-fifth of the world's oil and gas supplies, has compelled Trump to make a series of concessions that have provoked concern among American hardliners on Iran and the Israeli government.

The MOU stipulates an end to hostilities in Lebanon, a point of contention for Israel, which seeks to maintain its influence in the region. This disagreement has the potential to deepen the divide between Israel and the US and could empower Iranian hardliners opposed to any agreements with America.

In exchange for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the MOU indicates that the US will lift its counter-blockade of Iranian ports, relax sanctions that would allow Iran to generate billions from oil exports, and initiate the process of unfreezing billions of dollars in Iranian assets held overseas.

These arrangements precede more challenging negotiations regarding a nuclear deal. They represent the conditions for reverting to the pre-war status of February 27, when shipping was unimpeded through the Strait of Hormuz and American and Iranian negotiators were engaged in talks about a nuclear agreement.

The signing of the MOU signals a return to negotiations, allowing ships to transit the Strait of Hormuz once again.

Antony Blinken, the Secretary of State under Joe Biden, expressed on social media that the only notable outcome of the ceasefire appears to be the likely reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, which had been accessible prior to the war, implying that the US may be paying Iran for this concession.

The lingering question of the war's purpose remains unanswered and is likely to persist. Analysts consider this conflict one of Trump's most significant foreign policy missteps.

The situation may also jeopardize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political future, as he prepares for elections in October. He faces scrutiny from Israeli voters regarding his role in security failures that led to a significant lapse in military and intelligence foresight regarding Hamas's attack from Gaza on October 7, 2023. Netanyahu's hardline approach and rejection of diplomatic solutions were partly aimed at restoring his image as a security-oriented leader.

Tehran has long understood the strategic leverage afforded by controlling the Strait of Hormuz, as have US military officials and diplomats. However, following the assassination of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his advisors in the initial airstrikes of the conflict, his successors recognized their precarious position and opted to use the Strait as a tactical weapon.

This strategy has demonstrated the effectiveness of wielding economic influence, proving to be a more cost-effective measure than the extensive network of alliances Iran had cultivated over decades in the Middle East.

Despite the challenges faced by Iran's so-called axis of resistance, which includes the Assad regime in Syria, the coalition has endured significant damage from Israeli actions, raising questions about its future viability.

Iran has also invested heavily in its nuclear program, which it insists is not intended for weaponization but still represents a substantial option and threat. However, the war has inflicted considerable harm on Iran, despite the regime's survival.

The closure of the Strait has had immediate and widespread repercussions, impacting not only Iran but also the Arab oil-producing states and the global economy.

While the US and Israeli air forces achieved tactical victories during the conflict, these victories did not translate into strategic success, undermined by a flawed assumption that regime change would follow the elimination of Iran's leadership.

The Iranian regime, unlike other regimes that collapsed under similar pressure, has been structured to withstand such assaults, rooted in ideology, religious conviction, and a historical context shaped by the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

In the lead-up to the conflict, President Trump suggested that the Iranian regime would collapse, urging the Iranian populace to seize the chance to reclaim their country, and later demanding its unconditional surrender.

Netanyahu, who has consistently advocated for military action against Iran, described the situation in grand terms, suggesting that a coalition of forces would allow for a decisive strike against what he termed a terror regime.

While the MOU is not a conclusive agreement, it sets the stage for discussions surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions, incorporating significant incentives for Iran. Should negotiations proceed positively, the US has indicated a willingness to lift sanctions.

The success of the upcoming 60 days of talks regarding the nuclear deal, which may be extended due to the complexity of the issues, is uncertain. Distrust remains high on both sides, and various hardliners in Washington, Tehran, and Israel may seek to obstruct the deal's progress.

Iran could risk overextending itself by taking an uncompromising stance in negotiations, potentially jeopardizing economic opportunities that could stabilize its struggling economy.

Nonetheless, this agreement presents a more favorable alternative to a war that has resulted in significant loss of life and posed a threat of a global economic downturn.

If a nuclear agreement is reached that satisfies both the US and Iran, and both parties adhere to their commitments, it could lead to a transformative shift in the Middle East. However, this outcome remains contingent on navigating a long and complicated negotiation process.