Agreement with Iran confirms US defeat after months of military escalation

The United States reached an agreement with Iran to end the war of imperialist aggression that began in February without achieving the main objectives that justified the military escalation launched by Washington and Israel.

The understanding, announced by Donald Trump and the Pakistani government and later confirmed by Iranian authorities, represents a political victory for Tehran and exposes the failure of the US strategy of maximum pressure.

After months of bombings, sanctions, naval blockade and threats to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, the White House ended up forced to negotiate.

The outcome of the talks points to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the release of frozen Iranian resources, discussion on sanctions relief and a new round of future negotiations on the nuclear issue.

The contrast between the objectives announced at the start of the war and the known terms of the agreement helps explain why Washington emerges weakened.

The United States did not overthrow the Iranian government, did not interrupt the Islamic Republic’s military capacity, did not eliminate its nuclear program, nor did it unilaterally impose the conditions for ending the conflict.

On the contrary, it was Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz that altered the balance of forces. The blockage of the main global route for transporting oil and gas increased international economic pressure and turned the continuation of the war into a political problem for the Trump administration.

The reopening of Hormuz now appears as one of the main achievements claimed by the White House.

But it is, in practice, the recovery of a situation that existed before the war. After months of confrontation, Washington ends the conflict seeking to reestablish a normality broken by the very military escalation it helped to promote.

The list of terms released by the Iranian agency Mehr News reinforces the favorable position achieved by Tehran in the negotiations.

Among the points disclosed are the immediate and permanent end of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon; the suspension of oil-related sanctions; the release of $24 billion in blocked Iranian resources; the American commitment to respect Iran’s sovereignty; and a period of 60 days to discuss a definitive agreement.

The text published by Iranian media also states that the Islamic Republic’s missile program and Tehran’s support for resistance movements have been definitively removed from the negotiations agenda.

If confirmed, the point represents yet another setback for Washington, which for years tried to transform these issues into a central axis of its Middle East policy.

Another revealing aspect is the position occupied by Lebanon in the talks. The Iranian government made it clear that stopping Israeli attacks was an indispensable condition for any understanding.

The requirement makes the Lebanese situation an inseparable part of the agreement and could complicate Israel’s strategy of maintaining the military offensive in parallel with the negotiations.

Even with the announcement of the understanding, Israel returned to attacking Lebanon. The episode highlighted the differences between Tel Aviv and Washington and showed the limits of the North American capacity to control its main ally in the region.

The future of Iran’s nuclear program will be addressed at a later stage of the negotiations.

Still, the simple fact that the issue remains open represents a result far from the goals presented by the most aggressive sectors of the US government and the Israeli far right, which advocated the complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

After months of war, the picture that emerges is the opposite of that promised by the White House when the escalation began.

Iran preserved its government, maintained its capacity for regional influence, transformed the Strait of Hormuz into an instrument of strategic pressure and arrived at the negotiating table in a sufficient position to impose a relevant part of its demands.

The United States, in turn, ended the conflict without achieving its central objectives and forced to negotiate conditions that, just a few months ago, it stated it was not willing to accept.