German newspapers and magazines unanimously agree that the framework agreement between the United States and Iran is considered an “unconditional surrender” to the administration of President Donald Trump before the Iranian regime, and Trump recalls previous statements in which he criticized the Iranian nuclear agreement that was signed in 2015.
Since the announcement that the United States and Iran had reached an agreement that paves the way for ending the war in the region, the German media has been continuously discussing this agreement, which aims to stop the hostilities and open a new negotiating path between the two parties.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
German newspapers and magazines of all orientations agree that the agreement that US President Donald Trump is trying to present to public opinion in his country and in the world as a diplomatic victory, is in fact an understanding that will strengthen Iran’s position in the region and will contribute to a decline in confidence in the American role in the Middle East.
The Middle East lost
The most prominent German media outlet that was interested in this agreement was the left-liberal magazine Der Spiegel, which titled an analysis by its writer on Middle East affairs, Dounia Ramadani, saying, “Trump wanted to break Iran, so he lost the Middle East.”
The writer says that Trump began the confrontation with Iran with the aim of weakening the regime in Tehran, but everything ended with an agreement that Tehran celebrated, noting that everything that could have been reached through diplomacy before the war was achieved afterward by incurring human losses, economic damage, and disruptions to shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
According to the analysis, the countries of the region feel that they have paid the price of escalation after they found themselves facing direct Iranian threats, at a time when the United States did not provide them with the expected support. The analysis also believes that the new agreement may lead to strengthening Iran’s regional position after it moved from isolation to a party sitting at the negotiating table.
Security arrangements
On the other hand, Spiegel says that some regional powers have begun to look for security arrangements that are more independent of the United States, pointing to a growing rapprochement between countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan, with the aim of building security cooperation that does not depend entirely on American guarantees.
The article also points to the resumption of military cooperation between Egypt and Turkey, in addition to regional projects led by Türkiye and Saudi Arabia, considering that these moves reflect the desire of some countries in the region to organize their affairs on their own.
The analysis concludes that the influence of the United States in the Middle East will not disappear suddenly, but it may witness a change in the nature of the relationship with its allies, as some countries have become more willing to diversify their security and political options instead of completely relying on Washington.
Strategic defeat
Channel 2 (ZDF) also discussed the agreement on the talk show (Maybert Illner) and hosted several experts and specialists in Middle East affairs, in addition to its correspondent in Washington, Elmar Tevsen. Most of the dialogue participants agreed that the United States suffered a strategic defeat through the agreement.
Commenting on the agreement, Tevesen said, using a football analogy: “The score is 7 to 1 in favor of Iran,” considering that Tehran emerged from the confrontation with the upper hand. As for the Vice-President of the parliamentary bloc of the Christian Democratic Union in Parliament (Bundestag), Norbert Röttgen, he said that what happened was actually a rescue of the Iranian regime at the hands of President Trump.
The participants believed that after the agreement, the Iranian regime was in a stronger position on the international scene, even though it did not defeat the United States militarily. They also considered that Israel, especially the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is one of the main losers from the recent developments.
The discussion concluded by emphasizing that the agreement does not end all differences, and that the major questions about the future of American influence in the Middle East, Iran’s regional power, and the role of Europe are still open.
Iranian victory
In an opinion article entitled “The Iran-United States agreement…the Iranian regime has won,” journalist Lisa Schneider in the leftist daily newspaper (Tas) says that Iran has been able to impose its conditions regarding all points of the agreement, considering that President Trump, who started the war, does not even care about the precise details of the agreement.
Schneider says that the Iranian regime should be congratulated because the memorandum of understanding that it signed with Washington and that Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian published on the X platform represents an “American surrender” whose impact is not limited only to Washington, but also to countries allied with the West in the region.
According to the commentary, Iran was able to achieve gains in various files, including the Strait of Hormuz. After signing the agreement – the article adds – the United States is supposed to begin immediately easing its naval blockade on Iran, while Tehran is only committed to making arrangements to ensure the safe passage of commercial ships without imposing fees within a period of 60 days. The author believes that this may implicitly mean that Tehran may demand fees after the end of this period.
Reconstruction of Iran
In the reconstruction file, Schneider criticizes the agreement, saying that although Iran caused great damage to the Gulf states during the war, it will not bear the costs of reconstruction, while the United States and its regional partners will provide at least $300 billion for Iran’s reconstruction and economic development, according to what was stated in the memorandum of understanding.
As for the sanctions imposed on Iran, the author says that they will be lifted without a clear return, with immediate exceptions being issued allowing the export of oil, while the agreement does not include, in her opinion, other files such as support for the armed groups supported in Lebanon, Yemen, the Palestinian territories, and Iraq.
Schneider also criticizes what she describes as the weakness of the clause on the Iranian nuclear program, noting that the text merely pledges not to produce or develop a nuclear bomb, which the newspaper considers insufficient.
The writer advises the American President to return to his previous statements in 2013 when he said: “We get nothing, while they get everything, including money and postponement of sanctions.”
