Published on 6/16/2026
The Financial Times newspaper believes that the agreement announced by the United States and Iran after weeks of negotiations represents the “least bad option” to get US President Donald Trump out of a crisis that could have been avoided from the beginning, but it does not yet constitute a permanent settlement to the conflict that has shaken the Middle East and confounded global energy markets.
The newspaper says in its editorial that the agreement extends the ceasefire announced on April 8 for an additional 60 days, a period that will be allocated to address the most complex issues, most notably the future of the Iranian nuclear program, while warning that the region will remain vulnerable to setbacks that may hinder the diplomatic path.
According to the newspaper, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and lifting the US naval blockade on Iran constitutes an important step to alleviate the global energy crisis and reassure the Gulf states that found themselves involved in a war that had warned Trump of its repercussions, especially after Tehran responded by targeting Washington’s allies in the region.
A humanitarian necessity
The Financial Times notes that the ceasefire that is supposed to include all fronts represents an urgent humanitarian necessity after more than 7,000 people were killed during the war, including about 4,000 people who died in Israeli strikes on Lebanon, where confrontations escalated between Israel and Hezbollah.
The newspaper believes that the agreement faces opposition from multiple parties, from hawks within the United States to hardliners in Iran, in addition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who preferred to continue military operations.
It is considered that Trump and Netanyahu did not succeed in achieving many of the goals of the war, as the Iranian regime remained in place and even emerged stronger after proving its ability to withstand strikes and close the Strait of Hormuz, while before the war Tehran was already engaged in nuclear negotiations and shipping traffic was proceeding normally.
The interest of both parties
The newspaper confirms that ending the war is in the interest of both parties. Although Iran has not yielded to American demands, it has suffered major losses and today faces worsening economic challenges, including accelerating inflation and the potential for escalating popular discontent, which forces it to engage seriously in negotiations leading to a final settlement.
The Financial Times stresses that the success of the agreement depends to a large extent on Trump’s ability to restrain Netanyahu, noting that an Israeli strike targeting Beirut nearly toppled the agreement days before its signing, prompting the American president to publicly criticize the Israeli prime minister.
She adds that Trump has real pressure tools, because Israel relies heavily on American military support, while Netanyahu, in turn, depends on the political cover provided by Washington.
The newspaper concludes that the experience of the past two and a half years has proven that military superiority alone is not enough to address the threats facing Israel, and that containing Iran and its allies requires a broader diplomatic path that begins with ending the current war and establishing a ceasefire in Lebanon, while avoiding repeating the mistakes that pushed the region into this crisis.
