Why does the agreement with Iran seem more like a victory for Tehran than an achievement for Trump? | policy

Questions are still being raised in Western political, diplomatic and media circles about whether the agreement between Iran and America represents the beginning of a permanent settlement or just a temporary truce that postponed more complex issues to later negotiations, at a time when the balance of initial gains is tilted in favor of Tehran.

Analyzes published by the New York Times, the Washington Post, The Guardian, and The Economist agree that the administration of US President Donald Trump has retreated significantly from its declared goals at the beginning of the war, in exchange for Iran obtaining a wide economic breathing space without making fundamental and immediate concessions regarding its nuclear program or its regional influence.

Economic gains for Tehran

The New York Times notes that the agreement gives Iran an “economic lifeline” by lifting the US naval blockade on its ports and allowing oil exports again before reaching a final agreement on the nuclear program.

Researcher Nicole Grajewski, a specialist in Iranian foreign policy, believes that “the memorandum appears in its entirety to be in favor of Iran,” as Tehran obtains “a path to ease sanctions, restore oil exports, obtain economic benefits, and reduce military pressures, in exchange for relatively limited nuclear commitments.”

This step comes at a time when the Iranian economy is suffering from the collapse of the local currency, high inflation rates, and worsening popular protests related to living conditions.

According to the newspaper, the resumption of oil exports may pump billions of dollars into the Iranian economy, relieving pressure on the general budget and enhancing the value of the Iranian rial, although the problems of corruption and mismanagement will remain.

Back off the red lines

At the international level, The Guardian believes that the agreement represents “an admission that the United States of America did not achieve what it wanted to achieve through war,” as since 2025 it had required stopping local enrichment, transferring the stock of enriched uranium outside Iran, and closing new enrichment facilities.

Today, Trump has recognized Iran’s right to continue enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, while only reducing the enrichment rate to 3.67% under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Lifting oil restrictions will also practically entail easing banking, insurance, and logistical restrictions related to Iranian trade.

Former US Treasury Department official Mayad Maleki warns that “expanding permits for financial transactions will undermine the infrastructure of US oil and financial sanctions, which represent the most powerful tools of economic pressure on the Iranian regime.”

A fragile truce and postponed issues

In another analysis, the New York Times believes that the agreement only “extended the state of uncertainty” for sixty days, the period allocated to begin detailed negotiations on three main issues: the Iranian nuclear program, the future of the Strait of Hormuz, and the ballistic missile program.

Sanaa Wakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa program at the British Chatham House Institute, says she fears that this agreement is the maximum that can be obtained, adding that the absence of a new nuclear agreement “will likely mean more wars.”

The newspaper notes that the 2015 nuclear agreement took about 20 months of negotiations with the participation of dozens of experts, which makes achieving a comprehensive agreement within sixty days unrealistic.

One of the most prominent European concerns is that about 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium will remain inside Iran instead of being transferred abroad, as happened in 2015.

The war did not completely end Iran’s military capabilities, as leaked intelligence reports indicate that Tehran retains about 70 percent of its previous missile arsenal.

A costly war with limited results

For its part, the Washington Post editorial board asks: “Is the Iran war really over?” considering that the final outcome was less than American goals.

The war did not completely end Iran’s military capabilities, as leaked intelligence reports indicate that Tehran retained about 70% of its previous missile arsenal, while allied parties such as Hezbollah and the Houthis remained in place.

In return, the United States paid a heavy price; 13 American soldiers were killed and about 400 others were injured, and American weapons stocks were greatly depleted.

The war also affected Washington’s relations with its European and Gulf allies, and contributed to US inflation rising to 4.2%.

According to the newspaper, Iran obtained a wide package of gains, including lifting the naval blockade, resuming oil exports, releasing assets worth $24 billion, and participating in a reconstruction fund worth $300 billion.

In contrast, Iran “offered remarkably little,” and was content to temporarily allow freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz during negotiations.

A carrot without a stick

As for The Economist magazine, it believes that Trump is “betting that Iran wants money more than influence,” considering that the agreement is based on the principle of “carrots without sticks.”

The magazine says that President Trump has abandoned most of the goals of the war, as there is no change in the Iranian regime, no restrictions on ballistic missiles, and no end to Tehran’s support for its regional allies.

Although the Iranian regime now has “an unprecedented opportunity to exchange nuclear ambitions for money and investments,” in the magazine’s view, the chances of this bet being successful remain limited.

The magazine warns that Iranian leaders “do not trust the United States,” and that the nuclear program gives them political status and a strategic guarantee of deterrence. She concludes that Trump is repeating his fundamental mistake, saying: “The first rule of diplomacy is not to assume that your opponent thinks the same way you do.”