Washington and Tehran Agreement… Has the War Laid Down Its Burdens?

Dr. Saeed Shaheen: The war showed the limited military options, and Israel views the agreement as a strategic failure because it did not achieve the set goals.

Talal Awkal: Trump no longer has many options except to move towards a memorandum of understanding that allows him to market an achievement that alleviates internal and external pressures on him.

Nabhan Khraisha: The success of signing the agreement does not mean the end of the conflict, but rather represents the beginning of a new test of the ability to translate understandings into a reality that prevents the return of open confrontation.

Dr. Tamara Haddad: The expected memorandum of understanding represents a trial phase during which the commitment of both parties to the terms of the truce and the implementation of initial steps will be tested before moving to a more comprehensive agreement.

Labib Taha: The Israeli raid on the southern suburb was part of attempts to obstruct the ongoing understandings and keep the escalation climate alive, but it did not succeed in doing so.

Daoud Kuttab: The strike on the southern suburb reinforced Washington's push to offer greater flexibility and additional concessions to Tehran, which strengthened its negotiating position.

Ramallah - Exclusive to "Al-Quds" -

After months of escalating military and successive regional tensions, attention is turning to diplomatic efforts aimed at formulating an understanding between the United States of America and Iran, and signing a memorandum of understanding in the coming days, in a move seen as a significant shift in the course of the crisis, marking the beginning of a phase of testing intentions and the resilience of the agreement.

According to writers, political analysts, and university professors, in separate interviews with "Al-Quds", this political movement comes amidst declining reliance on military solutions, after recent confrontations showed the difficulty of imposing new equations by force or achieving decisive gains on the ground.

Writers, analysts, and university professors confirm that the atmosphere surrounding the negotiations reflects a growing awareness among the concerned parties that the continuation of the conflict carries high political, economic, and security costs, which has enhanced the chances of seeking temporary arrangements that allow for containing tension and opening the way for addressing more complex contentious issues.

Any anticipated understandings are expected to form an initial framework for testing intentions and building trust before moving to more sensitive negotiation stages.

At the same time, these developments raise questions about the potential agreement's ability to withstand regional challenges, especially in light of Israeli objections and attempts to influence the outcomes of the negotiations and the new political scene, which was reflected in the preemptive strike on the southern suburb of Beirut against the negotiations.

An important achievement for both parties

Dr. Saeed Shaheen, Professor of Political Media at Hebron University, believes that reaching a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran represents an important achievement for both parties after a long period of confrontation and escalation, suggesting that these understandings will endure and be followed by prolonged negotiation rounds during which each party seeks to enhance its political and strategic gains, amidst a growing conviction of the impossibility of resolving the conflict militarily.

Shaheen explains that the war showed the limited military options available to both parties, as there is no longer room for a complete resolution except through means that are regionally or internationally unacceptable.

Shaheen points out that among the most prominent reasons for the failure of the military campaign against Iran was Tehran's ability to withstand and maintain the cohesion of its internal front, contrary to expectations that bet on the collapse of the regime after targeting its military and security leaders and striking its military capabilities in the early stages of the war.

Iran's success in containing the strikes

Shaheen confirms that Iran succeeded in containing the effects of the strikes by quickly rebuilding the command system and adopting a strategy of "long patience," in addition to employing multiple pressure cards that included missile power, targeting American interests and assets in the region, threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz, as well as activating the fronts of its allies in the region and entering into direct confrontation with Israel, which led to increased political and economic pressures on the United States and its allies.

Negative impacts on the American interior

Shaheen notes that the war negatively affected the American interior through rising prices and declining public support for the continuation of the confrontation, in addition to the emergence of divisions within US President Donald Trump's base and a decline in support indicators for the Republican Party in opinion polls, which contributed to pushing Washington towards the option of understanding.

Israel and strategic failure

Shaheen believes that Israel views the agreement as a strategic failure, as it did not achieve the goals it announced since the beginning of the war, foremost among them the overthrow of the Iranian regime and the definitive end of the nuclear project.

Shaheen points out that linking the Lebanese arena to the new understandings raises widespread Israeli objection, because it limits the freedom of military action that Tel Aviv considers an essential part of its security doctrine, and undermines its efforts to dismantle the axis of resistance, which has not been achieved according to current data. Rather, the proposed understandings give this axis a greater presence in future political and security equations.

Washington and Tel Aviv's failure to achieve war goals

Political writer and analyst Talal Awkal believes that the move towards an American-Iranian understanding came as a result of the failure of the United States and Israel to achieve the goals they announced at the beginning of the war, despite the intensive military operations, siege, and pressures exerted during the past period.

Awkal believes that US President Donald Trump no longer has many options except to move towards an agreement or memorandum of understanding that allows him to market a political achievement that alleviates the increasing internal and external pressures on him.

Awkal explains that the war damaged American interests, at a time when Israel seemed more committed to continuing the confrontation, which led to increasing divergence between the priorities of the two allies.

Prioritizing American interests

According to Awkal, Washington ultimately chose to prioritize its direct interests and reassert the independence of American decision-making, even if this led to a decline in the Israeli role in shaping the political arrangements related to the conflict.

Awkal points out that the difficulty of reaching a comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear file pushed the US administration to accept a transitional memorandum of understanding that allows Trump to declare a political success, especially in files related to navigation security and opening the Strait of Hormuz. Awkal notes that, in return, Iran feels that it has emerged with important political and economic gains as a result of its steadfastness during the confrontation, without abandoning its sovereignty, its nuclear project, or its network of regional alliances.

The preemptive strike in the southern suburb

Regarding the recent Israeli escalation in the southern suburb of Beirut coinciding with the decisive phase of the negotiations, Awkal believes that this strike came as part of a preemptive effort led by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to create new facts on the ground and improve Israel's conditions in any future arrangements, in addition to attempting to disrupt the expected American-Iranian understanding.

Tehran puts Netanyahu in confrontation with Washington

Awkal believes that Netanyahu hoped to push Iran into a military response that would disrupt the negotiations, but Tehran contented itself with political threats and hinting at reconsidering the negotiations without being drawn into a direct confrontation.

Awkal points out that this Iranian stance put Netanyahu in direct confrontation with the US administration, which became more keen on the success of the understandings, which pushed Trump to exert pressure on Israel and hold it responsible for any attempt to thwart the agreement.

The beginning of a long path of complex negotiations

Awkal emphasizes that the next phase does not mean the end of the conflict, but rather the beginning of a long path of complex negotiations on the fundamental outstanding issues, warning that Israel may continue its attempts at sabotage and escalation across multiple arenas including Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and perhaps Iraq and Yemen, amidst the continuation of the major strategic shifts produced by the war and its political consequences.

Facing the test of the agreement's resilience

Journalist and writer Nabhan Khraisha believes that the talk about the United States and Iran approaching an agreement to end the war and sign it in Switzerland raises questions that go beyond the content of the anticipated understanding to its ability to withstand the political and military challenges surrounding it, especially in light of the Israeli position rejecting any arrangements that might grant Tehran political or strategic gains.

Khraisha explains that the forty-eight hours preceding the talk about the signing witnessed a remarkable Israeli escalation, represented by intensified military operations inside Lebanon and expansion into new southern areas, in addition to targeting the southern suburb of Beirut at a politically sensitive time, coinciding with the American-Iranian negotiations approaching their final stages.

Khraisha believes that these movements were not just isolated field operations, but rather came within a clear Israeli attempt to obstruct the ongoing understandings.

According to Khraisha, Israel intended to send two main messages through this escalation; the first is a rejection of any agreement that might strengthen Iran's regional position or grant it political and security gains, and the second is to emphasize that the Lebanese arena and Israel's freedom of military action there must remain outside any understandings between Washington and Tehran.

Khraisha points out that the announcement of the agreement, if it actually happens, will mean that attempts to disrupt it at the last minute did not achieve their primary goal of preventing the understanding or pushing the region towards a wider confrontation.

An attempt to solidify the negotiations

This will also reflect, according to Khraisha, a strategic decision by the United States and Iran not to allow field developments or external pressures to derail the negotiations after they have reached advanced stages.

However, Khraisha stresses that the real challenge will begin after the signing, explaining that the future of the agreement will be determined by three main factors: first, the nature of the Iranian response to any subsequent Israeli provocations, and whether Tehran will continue its policy of self-restraint or resort to direct military responses.

The second factor, according to Khraisha, is related to the United States' position and its willingness to protect the agreement and exert effective pressure on Israel to prevent its undermining.

According to Khraisha, the third factor is Israeli behavior itself and the possibility of Tel Aviv moving from attempting to overthrow the agreement to attempting to empty it of its content by continuing the escalation in Lebanon, Syria, and other arenas.

Khraisha suggests that the agreement will remain in place even if limited tensions continue, but it may remain fragile and vulnerable to instability.

Khraisha also raises another possibility, which is the success of real American pressure on Israel to expand the scope of the truce and give the agreement a greater chance of survival, as opposed to a more dangerous scenario based on escalating Israeli military operations that would push Iran or its allies into larger responses that would return the region to a spiral of escalation.

Khraisha believes that the success of signing the agreement does not mean the end of the conflict, but rather represents the end of one phase and the beginning of a new test of the ability of the different parties to translate political understandings into a practical reality that prevents the region from returning to open confrontation.

Fragility of previous agreements raises concerns

Writer and political researcher Dr. Tamara Haddad explains that current indicators point to the imminent signing of a framework understanding between Washington and Tehran in the coming days in Switzerland, clarifying that the expected understanding includes establishing a ceasefire, halting military operations, and opening negotiation channels to address thorny issues, most notably the Iranian nuclear program, navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz, and economic sanctions imposed on Iran.

Haddad points out that the main challenge lies not so much in announcing the agreement as in its ability to endure, noting that previous experiences in the region have shown the fragility of agreements concluded under the pressure of military confrontations unless they transform into broader and more firmly established political and security understandings.

Core issues still pending

Haddad notes that many core issues are still postponed to later negotiation stages, which makes the anticipated understanding closer to a truce framework or a ceasefire than to a final and comprehensive settlement of the conflict.

The Dahiyeh strike failed

Meanwhile, Haddad explains that the recent Israeli strike on the southern suburb of Beirut came at a highly sensitive time, and seemed like an attempt to impose new facts on the ground and improve Israel's negotiating position before the announcement of the American-Iranian understanding.

Despite the angry reactions the strike provoked in Tehran, it did not succeed, according to Haddad, in disrupting political contacts or stopping mediation efforts, which reflects an international and regional will to maintain the negotiation process and not allow it to collapse due to a single military incident.

Haddad believes that the strike simultaneously revealed the extent of the differences between the various parties, and confirmed that any future agreement will remain vulnerable to instability as long as the tension arenas in Lebanon and Gaza are open, or if some parties continue to use military escalation to achieve political gains.

Challenges facing the anticipated understanding

Haddad indicates that there are internal and external challenges facing the anticipated understanding, foremost among them the objection of conservative currents within Iran, in addition to the Israeli position rejecting any agreement that Tel Aviv sees as a threat to its interests or its security approach towards Iran and its allies in the region.

Haddad believes that the expected memorandum of understanding represents a first trial phase between Washington and Tehran that may extend for about sixty days, during which the commitment of both parties to the terms of the truce and the implementation of initial steps will be tested before moving to a more comprehensive agreement.

Iran's opportunity to achieve gains

Haddad points out that Iran views this phase as an opportunity to achieve political and economic gains, including easing sanctions, releasing part of frozen funds, and ensuring navigation security in the Strait of Hormuz.

Haddad suggests that Tehran will avoid a direct response to the Israeli strike on the southern suburb of Beirut, in order not to derail the ongoing negotiations, and to show that the party obstructing the understandings is Israel and not Iran.

Haddad points out that the Iranian leadership realizes that engaging in a wide confrontation could dissipate the gains it seeks to achieve through the negotiation process.

Negotiating under fire

Haddad believes that what is currently happening falls within what can be described as "negotiating under fire," where each party seeks to improve its political conditions through military force tools in parallel with the continuation of diplomatic contacts.

According to Haddad, Israel is trying to confirm that it will not accept changing the rules of engagement or strengthening the influence of Iran's allies, while Tehran seeks to consolidate its regional influence and ensure that its allies are not harmed.

Continued contacts through mediators

Haddad expects continued contacts between Washington and Tehran through mediators, increased American pressure on Israel to prevent the expansion of the confrontation, in addition to continued limited skirmishes in some regional arenas without sliding into a comprehensive war.

Haddad believes that the possibilities of the understandings collapsing still exist, but an open regional war is not the most likely scenario at the current stage, given all parties' awareness of the exorbitant political, economic, and human costs of any wide confrontation, which gives the chances of continued negotiation and reaching larger understandings greater than the chances of returning to war, despite the option of military escalation remaining on the table if the negotiation process fails in the coming period.

Confrontation no longer serves interests

Political writer and analyst Labib Taha suggests that the coming days will witness the signing of an agreement between the United States and Iran after a long period of negotiations that preceded, continued during, and followed the war, stressing that both parties have reached a conviction that continued confrontation no longer serves their interests in light of the increasing political, economic, and military costs.

Taha explains that the United States does not wish to engage in long-term direct wars, especially in light of internal constraints and political and international considerations governing American decision-making, while Iran is tired of years of siege, pressures, and conflicts, and seeks to restore a degree of stability that allows it to improve its economic and living conditions.

Truce is a common interest

Taha believes that peace or a truce has become a common interest for both parties after each achieved what they could of their goals during the confrontation phase.

Taha believes that Israel stands in opposition to any American-Iranian understanding, considering that its strategy is based on keeping the region in a state of permanent conflict, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, or with Iran. According to Taha, Israel seeks one of two goals; either the continuation of the war indefinitely, or pushing Iran to a complete and comprehensive surrender, which is unattainable in the foreseeable future.

Israeli attempts to obstruct ongoing understandings

Taha points out that the Israeli raid on the southern suburb of Beirut came as part of attempts to obstruct the ongoing understandings and keep the escalation climate alive, but it did not succeed in changing the general direction towards the agreement.

Taha notes that the chances of the anticipated understanding enduring remain linked to American interests, pointing out that American policy has accustomed itself to dealing flexibly with alliances and agreements according to its changing interests, citing the cancellation of the nuclear agreement signed in 2015 a few years after its conclusion.

Excluding a comprehensive war

Taha rules out the return of a comprehensive, large-scale war in the near future, despite the possibility of some limited skirmishes, stressing that all parties are now aware of the extent of the losses that could result from any new regional confrontation.

Taha believes that Iran made a strategic mistake when it stopped or reduced the confrontation before ending the war on Lebanon, even though Hezbollah bore significant burdens in the confrontation with Israel.

Taha believes that the United States erred when it engaged in the war in response to the goals of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, without achieving the results it sought, foremost among them a change in the Iranian regime, noting that the outcomes of the Iranian nuclear file will become clearer after the official announcement of the details of the anticipated agreement.

The strike contributed to improving negotiations

Political writer and analyst Daoud Kuttab suggests that the anticipated agreement between the United States and Iran will endure, considering that its chances of survival seem greater than its chances of collapse, despite the surrounding regional complexities.

Kuttab points out that the path related to the Lebanese arena may face obstacles and setbacks during the next phase, due to the continued field tensions and the intertwining of regional calculations related to Lebanon.

Kuttab believes that the recent Israeli strike, contrary to expectations, contributed to improving the terms of negotiation in favor of Iran instead of weakening its position.

Kuttab believes that the Israeli escalation in the southern suburb of Beirut gave Tehran an opportunity to obtain additional concessions during the ongoing discussions, whether regarding commitments related to the nuclear file or regarding the extent of economic facilities and funds that may be released or the easing of restrictions imposed on them within the framework of any anticipated understanding.

Israeli electoral considerations

Kuttab points out that recent developments indicate that political and electoral considerations within Israel played an influential role in pushing events towards this path, more than their connection to direct Israeli strategic interests, which ultimately reflected on the negotiation process by pushing Washington to offer greater flexibility and additional concessions in favor of Tehran, thereby strengthening its negotiating position before reaching the awaited agreement.