The world awaits.. Is the agreement between Washington and Tehran imminent?

Dr. Raed Al-Dabai: The potential agreement will not be able to end the main causes of conflict between the two sides due to the continued deep differences over complex strategic issues.. Areeb Al-Rantawi: Including Lebanon in any anticipated memorandum of understanding could be an important opportunity to support stability and open the door to consolidating a ceasefire.. Dr. Qusai Hamed: Any potential agreement between Washington and Tehran will remain, according to current data, a fragile agreement of an emergency nature imposed by the political and security circumstances of both parties. Dr. Jamal Harfoush: Seriousness in negotiations does not necessarily mean an imminent final agreement, and fundamental issues still pose obstacles to any comprehensive understanding. Samer Anabtawi: The success of the anticipated agreement will remain linked to the United States' ability to compel Israel to implement understandings related to Lebanon and other regional arenas. Dr. Osama Abdullah: The current stage represents a mutual test of intentions rather than a path towards a historic agreement, despite the seriousness of ongoing political movements. Ramallah - Exclusive to \"Al-Quds\" - Political and media indicators are increasing regarding the rapprochement between Washington and Tehran to formulate a new understanding, at a time when what is happening is not yet considered a comprehensive final agreement, but rather falls within a complex negotiation process aimed at managing tension and reducing the chances of regional explosion. A number of writers, political analysts, and university professors, in separate interviews with \"Al-Quds,\" believe that the motives of both parties are linked to an increasing awareness of the cost of escalation, compared to the need for arrangements that ensure the stability of international navigation and energy markets, with fundamental issues remaining unresolved, including the nuclear program, ballistic missiles, regional influence, and the relationship with Israel, in addition to the issues of the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab and economic sanctions, noting that any potential understanding could expand to include various regional arenas, reflecting the interconnectedness and entanglement of Middle East crises from the Gulf to the Red Sea, reaching Gaza and Lebanon. Some believe that including regional fronts in any potential agreement reflects a shift in the international approach, based on recognizing Iran as an influential regional power whose role cannot be bypassed, in exchange for an American endeavor to manage influence instead of direct confrontation. However, this path, according to other estimates, remains fragile and open to the possibility of regression, given the continued differences between American and Iranian positions, and the intertwining of the Israeli factor in regional decision-making equations. Writers, analysts, and university professors agree that the agreement, if reached, will not be a final solution to the conflict, but rather a transition from a phase of open confrontation to a new phase of controlling the rules of engagement and managing balances, and that the continued hotspots of tension in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank keep the possibilities of escalation alive, given the differing positions of international and regional powers. A serious but... Dr. Raed Al-Dabai, Professor of Political Science at An-Najah National University, believes that current political data indicate a serious path between the United States and Iran to reach a framework agreement that regulates the relationship between the two parties and limits the possibilities of escalation, but it does not amount to a final settlement or a radical end to the existing conflict between them. Al-Dabai explains that the trend towards this type of agreement reflects a growing conviction in Washington and Tehran that the continuation of tension and open confrontation carries a high strategic, security, and economic cost that exceeds the cost of reaching a temporary understanding that ensures the management of differences instead of resolving them. Interests of both parties Al-Dabai points out that the United States primarily seeks to prevent the expansion of confrontation in the region, especially after recent military developments and the accompanying threats to international navigation, in addition to its keenness on the stability of global energy markets, which have been directly affected by regional tensions. Al-Dabai indicates that Iran views the agreement as an opportunity to alleviate the economic sanctions imposed on it, recover part of its frozen financial assets, and maintain its regional position and influence, benefiting from the cards of power it possesses in the region. Searching for a new formula of understanding Al-Dabai emphasizes that international pressures related to energy security and global trade movement have pushed all parties to search for a new formula of understanding based on managing the conflict and establishing clearer rules of engagement in the coming years. Al-Dabai points out that the potential agreement will not be able to end the main causes of conflict between the two sides, due to the continued deep differences over complex strategic issues including the Iranian nuclear program, ballistic missiles, the security of the Straits of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, economic sanctions, and the relationship with Israel, in addition to Iranian regional influence and the role of its allies in the region. Iran's opportunity to impose its vision Regarding the discussion about the agreement covering all fronts, Al-Dabai believes that this issue carries important strategic implications, as it reflects Iran's success in imposing its vision based on considering its national security and regional influence as a single, indivisible issue. According to Al-Dabai, from this perspective, Tehran refuses to separate the nuclear file from issues related to Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, the Red Sea, and even security arrangements related to Israel. Al-Dabai points out that including these issues within a single negotiation framework reflects a practical American recognition of Iran's status as an influential regional power that possesses direct tools of influence in a number of Middle East arenas, especially after its success in utilizing strategic pressure cards related to navigation and energy. Transition from open confrontation Al-Dabai emphasizes that any agreement covering various fronts will not mean ending conflicts or addressing their roots, but rather a transition from a phase of open confrontation to a new phase of managing regional balances. Al-Dabai points out that the continued Israeli occupation of territories in Lebanon, Syria, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank keeps the causes of tension and conflict alive, making the region vulnerable to new rounds of escalation, especially given the possibility of differences between what the United States might accept and what Israel might reject. Understanding is closer than ever Areeb Al-Rantawi, Director of the Al-Quds Center for Political Studies, suggests that an agreement between the United States and Iran is approaching, considering that the accumulated political and diplomatic indicators during the recent period suggest that understanding is closer than ever, and may see the light within hours or a few days, unless unexpected developments occur or US President Donald Trump backs down from the current path, given his known volatile and unpredictable positions. Al-Rantawi explains that the political environment surrounding the negotiations has become more mature than before, noting that both parties realize the extent of the risks of sliding into a comprehensive war in the region, and the high political, economic, and security costs it could cause. Mediating countries do not want a widespread confrontation Al-Rantawi points out that the countries involved in mediation efforts and diplomatic endeavors, foremost among them the Gulf states, Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan, do not want a widespread confrontation to erupt that could make them pay direct costs as a result of its regional repercussions. Despite his optimism about the possibility of reaching an agreement, Al-Rantawi calls for caution in reading the scene, reminding that Trump announced dozens of times in the past two months that an agreement was imminent without that being practically translated. According to Al-Rantawi, the agreement remains a possibility until it is officially signed, while the possibilities of regression or setback remain until the last moments. The agreement may include various regional tension arenas Al-Rantawi confirms that careful monitoring of positions and leaks from various parties indicates that the anticipated agreement is not limited to bilateral issues between Washington and Tehran, but includes various regional tension arenas, within an approach based on the unity of fronts or arenas. He points out that American, Iranian, and Israeli sources have spoken similarly about this trend, while the Pakistani mediator confirmed that the situation in Lebanon occupies a prominent position within the understandings expected to be concluded. Including Lebanon reflects Iran's success Al-Rantawi believes that including Lebanon in the potential agreement reflects Iran's success in adhering to the demand to link regional arenas to each other, a demand it raised since the beginning of the war and which was then widely questioned by Arab and regional parties. He points out that the field developments and mutual military tug-of-war between Iran and Israel in recent months have shown Tehran's seriousness in defending this approach and its readiness to bear its consequences. Al-Rantawi emphasizes that including Lebanon in any anticipated memorandum of understanding could be an important opportunity to support stability and open the door to consolidating a ceasefire. Al-Rantawi calls on Lebanese forces, especially official institutions, to deal with this data as a political opportunity that can be exploited for Lebanon's benefit, instead of being preoccupied with internal disputes or debates related to Iran's role, considering that the next stage may push various Lebanese and Arab parties to search for ways to benefit from this new regional shift. Fundamental gaps still exist Dr. Qusai Hamed, Professor of Political Science at Al-Quds Open University, believes that the escalating talk about an imminent agreement between the United States and Iran does not necessarily mean that the two parties are on the verge of signing a final and comprehensive understanding, noting that fundamental gaps still exist between the two sides despite the political movement and continuous negotiations during the recent period. Efforts to reach a closer understanding Hamed explains that current indicators reflect efforts to reach a closer understanding, but the contradictory statements issued by American and Iranian officials reveal the continued divergence in understanding the nature and content of the agreement. The American administration presents the agreement as a framework that imposes restrictions on Iran in matters related to the nuclear program, weapons, drones, and freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, while Tehran views the understanding differently, seeking to keep the nuclear file within the negotiation circle according to its own vision and conditions without accepting direct dictates on it. According to Hamed, this divergence makes it difficult to talk about a solid agreement capable of ending the state of tension between the two parties, suggesting that if an understanding is reached, it will be limited to a temporary memorandum or framework of understanding aimed at postponing confrontation and reducing the chances of escalation instead of addressing the roots of existing differences. The most urgent goal Hamed points out that the most urgent goal for both parties is to ensure the continuity of navigation, open the Strait of Hormuz, and avoid any developments that could threaten global economic stability, which constitutes a fundamental meeting point between Washington and Tehran. Hamed indicates that the remaining issues, foremost among them the nuclear file and regional files, will remain subject to differences and political tug-of-war. The Lebanese arena is one of the most prominent obstacles Hamed points out that the Lebanese arena represents one of the most prominent obstacles to the success of any future understanding, explaining that Iran views Lebanon as an essential part of any potential regional arrangements and seeks to include it in understandings with the United States. Hamed believes that Israel has a significant impact on the chances of success or failure of these understandings, especially given Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's desire to maintain a wide margin of control over the Lebanese front, particularly pressuring the Lebanese government to disarm Hezbollah, and his rejection of any arrangements that might lead to strengthening what is known as the unity of fronts between Iran and its allies. A fragile and emergency agreement Hamed points out that any potential agreement between Washington and Tehran will remain, according to current data, a fragile agreement of an emergency nature imposed by the political and security circumstances of both parties, while the issues of Lebanon and the nuclear program remain among the most prominent issues capable of reigniting tension and confrontation in the region, making the chances of reaching a comprehensive and stable settlement still distant. A more mature and serious negotiation path Dr. Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the Academic Research Center University in Brazil, believes that the increasing talk about a potential agreement between the United States and Iran has, at the current stage, gone beyond media leaks and mutual political messages through mediators, to reflect a more mature and serious negotiation path compared to previous years, given a mutual understanding between the two parties of the magnitude of the challenges posed by the continued tension and open conflict in the region. He explains that the American administration now views the continuation of the regional engagement as a factor that drains its strategic interests and threatens the stability of its allies, while Iran faces accumulated economic pressures and widespread sanctions that have pushed it to seek a way out that allows it to alleviate the economic and political burdens it faces, which has contributed to creating an environment more willing to engage in serious negotiations. Seriousness does not mean an imminent final agreement Despite these indicators, Harfoush stresses that seriousness in negotiations does not necessarily mean an imminent final agreement, explaining that a number of fundamental issues still pose obstacles to any comprehensive understanding, foremost among them the Iranian nuclear program, the economic sanctions imposed on Tehran, Iran's regional role, in addition to the issue of mutual guarantees related to the implementation of any future agreement. Test of wills Harfoush considers the current stage closer to a "test of wills" between the two sides than to a stage of final resolution. Harfoush points out that the currently available data reflect a common desire in Washington and Tehran to move from managing conflict to managing understandings, but the success of this path will remain linked to the extent of the two parties' ability to make calculated concessions that ensure the preservation of their respective internal political balances, in addition to taking into account the interests of regional allies and partners. Regarding estimates that speak of an agreement not limited to the nuclear file only, but extending to include various arenas of tension in the region, Harfoush explains that this carries deep strategic implications, as it reflects a growing conviction among the concerned parties that the crises of the Middle East are interconnected, and that addressing any issue in isolation from other issues is no longer a realistic option, given the entanglement of situations in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the Red Sea, and the Gaza Strip. Redrawing regional rules of engagement Harfoush believes that expanding the scope of potential understandings to include these issues indicates a shift in negotiations from the level of limited technical agreements to the level of redrawing regional rules of engagement and regulating influence among active powers, thereby limiting the possibilities of direct and indirect confrontation. According to Harfoush, any comprehensive agreement of this kind will have direct repercussions on the Palestinian issue and the regional balance of power and alliances, and may represent the beginning of a new phase aimed at addressing the roots of chronic tension in the Middle East and opening the door to relative stability if the necessary political will is available to all parties. A step that may pave the way for a new phase of negotiations Political writer and analyst Samer Anabtawi believes that the political indicators circulating in recent days suggest an imminent agreement of intent between the United States and Iran, a step that may pave the way for a new phase of negotiations aimed at addressing the outstanding contentious issues between the two parties, which have prevented a comprehensive and final agreement for years. He explains that what is currently being discussed does not represent a complete settlement of existing crises, but rather a general framework that establishes a new negotiation path, given the continued differences over a number of fundamental issues. Anabtawi attributes this to the deep crisis of trust between Washington and Tehran, pointing out that previous experiences, especially the American withdrawal from previous understandings after their conclusion, reinforced Iranian suspicions about guarantees for the implementation of any future agreement, which pushed both sides to adopt a declaration of intent formula instead of a comprehensive agreement that resolves all issues at once. Factors that contributed to pushing negotiations to this stage Anabtawi believes that a number of factors contributed to pushing negotiations to this stage, most notably the failure of the American administration to achieve its stated goals through a policy of pressure and force, whether related to weakening the Iranian regime or extracting strategic concessions from it. Anabtawi believes that Iran's ability to withstand militarily, and its demonstrated readiness to respond to any attacks targeting it or its interests, strengthened its negotiating position during the past period. He emphasizes that the Iranian leadership maintained its fundamental constants during the negotiations, and adhered to its rights related to lifting sanctions, recovering its frozen funds, and ensuring its oil interests, in addition to emphasizing the principle of the unity of fronts and arenas as a key condition for any regional settlement. Anabtawi points out that the United States, in turn, faced political, economic, and military challenges that limited its ability to move towards an open confrontation, given the decline in public support for war within the United States, and the rising economic and geopolitical cost of any new escalation. Anabtawi points out that Iran suffered significant human, material, and military losses during the war, but the cohesion of the internal front and the unity of position among various Iranian political currents strengthened its ability to continue negotiations from a stronger position. Iranian insistence on linking any comprehensive understanding to the fate of its allies Anabtawi emphasizes that the inclusion of all regional fronts in the agreement, including Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, came as a result of continuous Iranian insistence on linking any comprehensive understanding to the fate of its allies in the region. Anabtawi believes that the Lebanese file was one of the most complex issues in the negotiations, as Tehran insisted that any agreement include a cessation of Israeli aggressions against Lebanon and the withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from the south, while Washington at various stages tried to separate the Lebanese and Iranian tracks. Anabtawi stresses that the success of the anticipated agreement will remain linked to the United States' ability to compel Israel to implement the understandings related to Lebanon and other regional arenas, pointing out that Tehran still considers the unity of fronts a fundamental condition that cannot be bypassed in any future agreement, which makes these issues an integral part of the ongoing understanding process between the two sides. Talk of a comprehensive agreement is still premature Political researcher and academic Dr. Osama Abdullah believes that the intensity of leaks and media reports about an imminent agreement between the United States and Iran does not necessarily reflect an approaching final settlement, noting that talk of a comprehensive agreement is still premature, despite serious indications of a mutual desire to reduce tension and avoid sliding into an open military confrontation. Abdullah explains that the relationship between Washington and Tehran has for years fluctuated between escalation and negotiation, but the current stage differs in that both parties have moved from testing strength to realizing its limits. Military options have not changed Iranian behavior According to Abdullah, Washington has come to realize that maximum pressure policies or military options have not achieved their goals in changing Iranian behavior, while Iran has come to realize that the continuation of open confrontation imposes an economic cost and drains its ability for regional movement. Abdullah points out that an increasing number of American and European research centers now believe that the Middle East can no longer tolerate a widespread regional war, given the tensions extending from the Gulf to the Red Sea, passing through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to Gaza. Therefore, what is happening is closer to understandings for managing the conflict rather than ending it. The main obstacle Abdullah explains that the main obstacle to any comprehensive agreement is the entanglement of contentious issues, which are no longer limited to the nuclear program, but include Iran's regional influence, its ballistic missile program, its relationship with Israel, and its network of regional allies, issues that are difficult to resolve within a single negotiation framework. Abdullah believes that the current stage represents a mutual test of intentions rather than a path towards a historic agreement, despite the seriousness of ongoing political movements. In contrast, Abdullah confirms that if reports of an agreement covering regional fronts are true, this reflects a strategic shift in the American approach, from dealing with Iran as a nuclear file to recognizing it as an active regional power that cannot be bypassed. Inclusion of fronts acknowledges interconnected crises Abdullah points out that the inclusion of various fronts in the agreement means acknowledging the interconnectedness of the region's crises, where the Gulf cannot be separated from Iraq, or Lebanon from the Iranian role, or the Red Sea from the overall regional conflict, which could lead to the formulation of new rules of engagement that limit the possibilities of explosion. Abdullah believes that the most sensitive dimension relates to the Palestinian issue, which may be included or excluded from any major regional arrangements, given historical precedents that have shown the tendency of international powers to prioritize security issues. Abdullah believes that the inclusion of all fronts in the agreement may open a phase of "influence management" instead of direct conflict, where major powers seek to reduce costs without abandoning their strategic interests.