ABNA24 - Finally, white smoke rose out of the White House on Sunday, something suggesting that the US government has reached a new deal. The smoke appeared after the US President Donald Trump announced reaching a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Iran to end the war he waged since February 28. Simultaneously, the deal was confirmed reached by Tehran, and Qatari and Pakistani officials as mediators, too, announced the agreement.
On February 28, when the US and Israeli regime launched a joint aggression against Iran, Trump claimed a big blow was dealt to Iran, destroying its military, naval, and air power. However, over the past two months, the erratic US president has been claiming that Washington was near a deal with Tehran. Now here is a question: What has made Trump go to a deal with a country he earlier claimed to have destroyed its military power?
Economic pressures: Trump's costly war
Many experts believe one of the main reasons Trump moved toward an agreement with Iran was the economic toll of the war. After more than three months of conflict, global energy prices surged, inflation fears rose in the US, and markets faced widespread uncertainty. Reuters reported that the deal with Iran immediately drove down oil prices and boosted financial markets, a clear sign that the economy was a key driver behind Washington’s push to end the war.
Aaron David Miller, a former US State Department negotiator and official, argues that the US-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic of Iran not only failed to achieve its goals but also imposed heavy costs. Commenting on the joint US-Israeli campaign, he said that the Operation Epic Fury turned into an "epic disaster."
Reuters also noted that, with midterm elections approaching, Trump found himself facing a war that brought rising energy prices and domestic political pressure. Continuing the conflict, the agency added, could have carried a heavy political price for the White House.
Failure of the regime change project in Iran
The failure to achieve the maximum US and Israeli objectives against Iran appears to have been a key reason for the halt. Many Western analysts believe that early in the war, some circles in Washington and Tel Aviv hoped military pressure would lead to a serious weakening, or even collapse, of Iran’s political structure. But Reuters’ analytical report stresses that despite enduring massive strikes, Iran emerged “politically strengthened” and preserved its political system. The report makes clear that the US failed to reach its ambitious goals, including forcing Iran to surrender or eliminating its missile and nuclear capabilities.
Citing regional diplomats and analysts, Reuters writes that Iran walked out of the war wounded but still standing, retaining much of its leverage.
This reality pushed Washington away from its original objectives and toward a ceasefire and an interim deal. Reuters notes explicitly that the new agreement even postpones discussion of the nuclear program, an issue initially presented as a core American goal at the start of the war.
Pressure on Washington by Arab allies
Growing pressure from Persian Gulf Arab states to end the war was another factor behind Washington’s decision to stop its aggression. Over the past few months, Arab nations concluded that prolonging the conflict could destabilize the entire region and jeopardize energy exports. Reuters’ analysis says the recent war has eroded Arab countries’ confidence in the US ability to secure the region and pushed them toward de-escalation with Tehran. According to Reuters, Arab governments have now concluded that neither the US nor Israel can destroy Iran’s influence or deterrent power. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain are primarily worried about energy security, maritime shipping, and their own economies. As a result, ending the war and reopening the Strait of Hormuz became one of their core demands. The final agreement focuses precisely on reopening the Strait of Hormuz and halting hostilities.
Deepening gap between Washington and Tel Aviv
Perhaps, the most important factor driving the US-Iran deal is the growing division between Trump and Netanyahu. Netanyahu was hopeful, Reuters reports, that the war will topple the government in Iran and will boost his political position at home. But at the end of the road, neither American aims nor those of Israeli regime were met. Daniel B. Shapiro, the former American ambassador to the Israeli regime and a current member of the Atlantic Council commented on the chasm between the allies, saying that this is a stark moment of diverging interests between the US and Israel.
Reuters also cited a senior Israeli official describing the agreement as "disasterous" to Tel Aviv.
According to the report, cases that at the beginning of the war were cited by Netanyahu and Trump to justify their aggression, including Iran's missile program and Tehran's support for its regional allies, are not included on the agenda of the agreement. Jonathan Rynhold, a political scientist at Bar-Ilan University, says that Netanyahu will struggle to sell this deal to the public opinion at home.
/129
Your Comment