US‑Iran Deal Forces Nation to Question the Purpose of the War
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on 27 February 2024 has set the stage for a new chapter in the long‑standing US‑Iran confrontation. The accord details the political, military and economic fallout from a war that began two days earlier, with the US and Israel launching an assault on Iran that meant the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and a high‑cost conflict in the wider Middle East.
The human toll is already stark. Thousands of civilians – both Iranian and Lebanese – have been killed, and the war has left the region in a precarious state. The United States and Israel, hailed as pre‑eminent military powers, found themselves on the back foot: the Iranian regime survived not only but appears to have been emboldened by its resistance to the attack.
The Straits and the Sanctions Dilemma
Iran’s strategic choice to block the Strait of Hormuz – an avenue that carries one‑fifteenth of the world’s oil and gas – forced the Trump administration to concede a series of concessions that angered both hard‑line US politicians and Israeli officials. In exchange for reopening the strait, the US agrees to lift its block on Iranian ports, waive certain sanctions and facilitate the return of billions of dollars by unfreezing assets seized abroad.
Those adjustments came before the crucial, yet hitherto unfinished, nuclear negotiations. The MOU does not yet guarantee an end to the conflict; rather, it paves the way for 60 days of talks aimed at resolving Iran’s nuclear programme.
Implications for Israel and Leadership Stakes
The MOU also stipulates the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon – a demand that Israel rejects, arguing that its interests in the region outweigh any ceasefire. This rift could provoke a sharper divide between the US and Israel, potentially aiding Iranian hardliners who oppose any deal with Washington.
Moreover, the way Trump framed the war – a “win‑now” pillory treatment of Iran, with promises of a “once‑in‑a‑generation” opportunity – may prove a turning point for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Facing elections in October, Netanyahu’s image as the “Mr. Security” is now being re‑examined after the failure to detect the Hamas invasion on 7 October 2023.
Strategic Lessons and Future Uncertainties
The US‑Israel strategy of regime change hinged on the mistaken belief that eliminating Iran’s Supreme Leader would collapse the entire system. Yet, after decades of institutional resilience, the Islamic Republic thrives even under extreme pressure. The notion that a single removal of a leader would crumble the state proved naïve, much like the experience of neighboring Syria.
The MOU’s rollout also serves as proof that control of a critical chokepoint can be a more efficient geopolitical lever than a vast network of proxy forces. For Iran, the ability to wield the strait carries far lower costs and higher returns than the multi‑channel strategy it once invested in across the region.
If the 60‑day talks advance and the US and Iran meet each other’s terms, the Middle East could see a dramatic transformation. Yet the path remains long, and distrust remains high; each side is wary of the other’s trustworthiness, and hardliners in Washington, Tehran and Israel continue to oppose the deal’s fruition.
Even if this 2024 handover ends the war, the question of why it began remains unanswered: economic sanctions, regional dominance, or ideological rivalry? The deal thus forces us to ask what the war truly was for, a question that will shape policy decisions for years to come.
Put on trial in the US—the broader narrative set by past political maneuvers and international responses keeps unfolding.
Trump and Netanyahu shaking hands under the U.S. and Israeli flags
