This is the first time a US and Iranian president have signed a deal since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. While supporters call it the “deal of the century,” Tehran’s opponents in the Middle East see it as the “curse of the century.” The deal could make Iran more secure, legitimate, and influential.
US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Peshmerga signed the interim deal on Wednesday, ending a three-month war. The deal was signed at the Palace of Versailles on the sidelines of the G7 summit. The 14-point agreement extends a ceasefire on all fronts, including Lebanon, by 60 days to allow for talks on a permanent solution, including on the nuclear program.
“This is a great deal from which there is no turning back,” said Lebanese analyst Sarkis Naum. “Iran, burdened by sanctions, cannot bear the economic pressure any longer, and Trump has no interest in a new war.”Read more
Will Israel’s reckless behavior derail the US-Iran peace deal?
Israel’s big blow
Israeli analyst Danny Citrinovich called it a strategic “catastrophe,” saying, “We went to overthrow the Iranian regime with US support, and Washington instead gave it legitimacy and power.”
Iran will benefit if the deal survives. It will see an end to the war, gradual lifting of sanctions, oil exports and reconstruction funds, as well as recognition of its political system. On the contrary, Washington and Israel’s main goals have failed.
The greatest concern has been in the Persian Gulf states, where previous Iranian attacks have shaken confidence in their long-standing security arrangements. The Gulf states have emerged as the main victims of this war—they have been mere spectators of decisions that have changed their security situation and are now forced to bear the consequences.
Sources in the Gulf say the deal is already changing their strategic thinking. Their confidence in US security is waning, Iran’s position as a regional power is consolidating, and their inclination towards compromise rather than conflict is growing.
But Iran expert Allen Vatanka is reluctant to accept this concern. Rather than seeing it as a surrender, he believes it was the least harmful option after years of failed use of force.
