In an extensive political analysis, 'The Atlantic' magazine considered the agreement announced by US President Donald Trump with Iran to be a clear strategic victory for Tehran and a diplomatic defeat for Washington. The analysis indicated that Trump, who rushed to celebrate the agreement coinciding with his eightieth birthday, failed to achieve any of the promises he made at the beginning of the conflict, most notably changing the Iranian regime.
Despite the US administration's attempts to portray the outcome as a victory, field and political realities indicate that Tehran emerged from this confrontation stronger and more cohesive. The Iranian regime maintained its structure under the leadership of the Revolutionary Guard, and its arsenal of ballistic missiles and drones continued to pose an existing threat, while its regional influence through allied groups continued without significant decline.
Reports indicate that the Iranians are now in control of the ongoing negotiations, with a crucial meeting scheduled in Switzerland next Friday to finalize the details. This agreement is expected to lead to a broad lifting of economic sanctions, paving the way for the flow of billions of dollars in frozen assets that Washington had previously refused to release.
Behind the scenes of the strained relationship with allies, the analysis revealed immense anger expressed by Trump towards Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing him of trying to obstruct the American withdrawal from the conflict. According to informed sources, Trump severely reprimanded Netanyahu after the latter's plans to attack Beirut, reminding him that American support is what protects him from legal prosecution and imprisonment.
Observers believe that Iran's clever linking of the Lebanon front with the tension in the Gulf forced the US administration to accept conditions that include a comprehensive ceasefire in the region. This shift places Israel in a state of political isolation, especially after Netanyahu recklessly encouraged Trump to military escalation, which ended in a settlement that does not serve direct Israeli interests.
Regarding the nuclear file, the analysis described Washington's claims of depriving Iran of nuclear weapons as a 'ridiculous assertion,' given that Tehran had previously adhered to international agreements before Trump withdrew from them. Now, the United States finds itself facing a new reality in which Iran possesses large quantities of enriched uranium, with less capacity for international oversight compared to the situation before the war.
The leaked terms of the agreement include huge financial gains for Tehran, with an expected receipt of 12 billion dollars as a first installment, followed by similar amounts within two months of signing. There is also talk of establishing an international reconstruction fund worth up to 300 billion dollars, which represents an economic lifeline for the regime that has suffered for years from a suffocating blockade.
On the ground, the Strait of Hormuz remains under Iran's de facto control despite Trump's showy announcements of opening it for free international navigation. The geopolitical reality confirms that Iranian forces are the only party capable of imposing their will in this vital waterway, making American promises mere statements for local media consumption before the elections.
This confrontation has led to the depletion of US military stockpiles and increased economic pressure on consumers in the United States due to rising fuel prices. In contrast, Iran emerged from the crisis with new financial resources and implicit recognition of its regional power, which strengthens its position as an indispensable player in the equations of the Middle East.
Writer Tom Nicholas points out that Trump was in a hurry to end the conflict at any cost to avoid its repercussions on financial markets and the upcoming elections. This haste gave the Iranian negotiator an opportunity to impose harsh conditions, including guaranteeing the survival of the regime and lifting the naval blockade on Iranian ports, which is considered a complete retreat from the 'maximum pressure' policy.
Regarding the enriched uranium that was bombed, a major technical and security dilemma arises about how to deal with the radioactive materials under the rubble. Despite the threats of US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the reality confirms the impossibility of US forces entering to extract these materials without the full approval and coordination with the authorities in Tehran.
Recent events have proven that military power alone is not enough to achieve sustainable political victories, especially against an adversary that possesses multiple leverage points. Iran not only withstood militarily but also succeeded in inflicting economic and political damage on regional countries that engaged in Trump's strategy, pushing everyone to seek a diplomatic solution.
Analysts believe that this settlement will have a long-term impact on US alliances in the region, as Gulf countries have begun to realize the futility of complete reliance on American protection. The military bases that were supposed to provide security, at the moment of conflict, turned into potential targets, while Washington ultimately prioritized its own political interests at the expense of its allies.
In conclusion, the current scene shows that the United States has lost its bet on breaking Tehran's will, and ended up accepting an agreement that grants the Iranian regime everything it aspired to. While Trump celebrates in the White House garden, the bitter truth remains that Washington surrendered to the fait accompli, leaving the region facing new power balances that clearly tilt towards the Islamic Republic.
The truth is that the war will stop, and the regime in Tehran is healthy and under the control of the Revolutionary Guard, while the Americans have not achieved any of their goals.
شارك برأيك
Analysis: How Iran Achieved Its Strategic Goals and Forced Washington to Retreat?