After the guns fell silent… How does everyone think about the consequences of the Iran war? | policy

American and British newspapers covered the dimensions of the sudden interim agreement between America and Iran, after 110 days, highlighting the “extensive American concessions and financial gains for Tehran,” amid deep Gulf and Israeli concern about the absence of security guarantees, and a possible Iranian geostrategic shift based on strengthening the grip of power and alliance with China.

The Atlantic magazine published an article by writer Karim Sajidpour, who said that US President Donald Trump’s policy towards Iran moved after the last war, from betting on military force to betting on political and economic incentives with the aim of limiting the Iranian nuclear program and improving relations between the two countries.

Political and economic gains for Iran

The writer explains that Trump began the confrontation with Iran, relying on the premise that military strikes and widespread pressure could push the Iranian regime to retreat or collapse. However, the results of the war did not fully achieve the declared goals, and ended in a memorandum of understanding that granted Iran political and economic gains in exchange for its commitment not to develop or possess nuclear weapons.

He believes that these understandings appear to be more generous towards Iran compared to previous agreements, especially since Trump had strongly criticized the nuclear agreement concluded during the era of former President Barack Obama, and considered it a weak agreement at the time.

The article discusses the US administration’s efforts to bring about a broader shift in relations with Iran through negotiation and political rapprochement. However, the author questions the chances of success of these efforts due to the continued Iranian rhetoric against the United States and Israel, and the adherence of many Iranian leaders to the basic principles on which the Iranian Revolution was based.

Writer Sajidpour:
The new American bet on changing Iran’s behavior through incentives may face major difficulties in the foreseeable future

American betting is fraught with challenges

Sajidpour concludes his article by emphasizing that the current understandings do not represent the end of the conflict between the United States and Iran, but rather may be a temporary phase of calm. He believes that the future of relations between the two countries will remain fraught with challenges, and that the new American bet on changing Iran’s behavior through incentives may face major difficulties in the foreseeable future.

The New York Times published a report by writer Jim Tankersley that dealt with international reactions to the initial agreement reached by the United States and Iran, explaining that the welcome shown by world leaders to the agreement was accompanied by clear caution due to the fundamental issues that are still pending and await subsequent rounds of negotiations.

The writer points out that the agreement raised hopes of restoring stability to global energy markets and maritime trade routes that were affected by the war, but its general formulation and its lack of resolution of the main files made many countries treat it as an insufficient first step to ensure security and stability in the long term.

In this context, the report quoted French President Emmanuel Macron as saying that the war has not completely ended, indicating the continuing state of uncertainty.

Major issues not resolved

The report focuses on key issues that remain unresolved, the first of which is the future of the Strait of Hormuz. The second relates to the Iranian nuclear program, which represents the greatest security concern for many countries. The third issue is Iran’s non-nuclear military capabilities, including missiles and drones, and its relations with allied groups in the region.

The writer points out that the agreement did not address these issues, which raised concerns in Israel and a number of Arab countries about the possibility of Iran benefiting from the economic facilities included in the agreement to rebuild its military capabilities and enhance its regional influence.

The author concludes that the initial agreement between the United States and Iran represents an opportunity to reduce tension, but it does not yet provide sufficient guarantees to address the complex security and political issues. Therefore, its success will remain linked to the ability of the parties concerned to reach more comprehensive understandings during the upcoming negotiations.

The decisive factor for the future of negotiations

The Guardian newspaper published a report on the future of Iranian leadership after the end of the war, and focused on the political and strategic lessons that Tehran might draw from this experience, and the extent of its impact on the ongoing negotiations with the United States regarding the nuclear program and bilateral relations.

The report indicates that the nature of the conclusions that the new Iranian leadership will reach may be the decisive factor in determining the future of the nuclear negotiations. If the leadership moves towards pragmatism and political settlements, this may open the door to an agreement that guarantees that Iran will not develop a nuclear weapon, which may contribute to improving the Iranian economy and reshaping the balance of power in the Middle East. However, if you adhere to the traditional ideological vision, the chances of reaching long-term understandings may be complicated.

The report also reviews the differences in American positions towards the new Iranian leadership. While Trump expressed optimism in some of his statements about the rationality of Iranian leaders and their willingness to help their country, American intelligence estimates showed skepticism regarding the correspondence of Iranian public statements with real intentions. Some American circles fear that Iran will resort to delaying negotiations or secretly seek to strengthen its nuclear capabilities in the future.

The report monitors widespread controversy within Iran regarding the agreement with the United States. The “extremist” movement, linked to a number of conservative figures, opposed the new understandings and considered them an unacceptable concession and a violation of the principles of the revolution. On the other hand, the pro-negotiation movement was able to achieve remarkable political progress, benefiting from the popular desire to end the state of tension and siege and improve economic conditions.

One of the most prominent beneficiaries

The report pays special attention to the growing role of Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqir Qalibaf, who is seen as one of the most prominent beneficiaries of the war’s outcomes. He defended the option of negotiation as a means to protect citizens and relieve pressure on them, stressing that the success of any confrontation or settlement ultimately depends on the support of the people and their national unity.

In its assessment of the next stage, the report indicates that initial indicators point to the Iranian leadership adopting a new strategy based on strengthening the authoritarian character of the regime, strengthening relations with China, and granting military institutions a greater role in formulating public policies.

The report also points out that the government’s focus may shift from confronting external threats to addressing internal economic problems, most notably inflation and the decline in the value of the currency.

Concern among Iranians

The report concludes by pointing out the continued state of anxiety among a sector of Iranians who were hoping for broader political changes. While some believe that the agreement may ease economic pressures, others fear that it will lead to the establishment of a more stringent governance model closer to authoritarian regimes, without achieving the political reforms that part of Iranian society aspires to.

Writer Mark Urban in the British newspaper The Sunday Times believes that the recent memorandum of understanding is more of an “invitation to conflict” than a sustainable peace agreement.

Orban added that the memorandum ostensibly aims to avoid an all-out war, but regional and local powers have already begun to interpret the memorandum and exploit it to serve their own interests, revealing internal and external complexities and conflicts that go beyond the mere bilateral negotiation between Washington and Tehran.

He explained that Iran was able to link the Lebanon file to the agreement, describing this as a nightmare for Israel, adding that this link gives Hezbollah an opportunity to rebuild its military capabilities and fortify itself in the coming months and years, while continuing to skirmish with Israel without fear of devastating reactions, given the restrictions imposed by Washington on Tel Aviv to protect the agreement.