SouthernWorldwide.com – President Trump is poised to present the developing Iran agreement as a testament to achieving peace through strength. His narrative will likely emphasize that American military might compelled Tehran to the negotiation table, prevented a nuclear-armed Iran, and resolved months of disruptive instability in the Strait of Hormuz.
While the military achievements are undeniable, the true measure of a conflict lies not in the pronouncements that initiate it, but in the conditions it leaves behind. This principle, established by the renowned military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, is the critical standard by which any forthcoming agreement from Washington must be evaluated.
What the Military Achieved
The United States and Israel can claim significant battlefield successes. Iranian air defense systems were diminished, missile sites were targeted, naval capabilities were weakened, and key leaders within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were eliminated. Furthermore, Tehran’s network of proxy forces experienced substantial setbacks, underscoring the overwhelming military superiority demonstrated by the U.S. and Israel.
Militarily, Iran bore a considerable cost. However, battlefield dominance and ultimate strategic success are distinct outcomes.
The Deal Taking Shape
President Trump announced on Saturday that an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz was “largely negotiated.” The proposed framework centers on the immediate reopening of the strait in exchange for the lifting of the U.S. naval blockade. This would be followed by 60 days of nuclear negotiations. According to Axios, a draft memorandum of understanding commits Iran to permanently forgo nuclear weapons and to negotiate a suspension of its uranium enrichment program. The U.S. would then discuss the lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of Iranian assets, but these actions would only be implemented as part of a final, verifiable agreement.
A senior official from the Trump administration stated on Sunday that Iran had agreed in principle to dismantle its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. However, the specific mechanism for achieving this remains unresolved. The administration desires the final deal to encompass all of Iran’s approximately 2,000 kilograms of enriched uranium, not just the 450 kilograms enriched to near-weapons-grade. Iran also possesses substantial quantities of lower-enriched uranium, which any credible denuclearization agreement must address. “Nobody disputes that the stockpile will be disposed of. The question is how,” the official commented.
The intricacies of the deal are fraught with challenges. Tehran disputes the U.S. characterization of the uranium surrender and insists that sanctions relief must precede any such action. Issues such as enrichment levels, inspections, missile restrictions, and proxy operations remain points of contention.
Baca juga di sini: Son of Mango Founder Denies Killing Him
Kicking the Can Again
Permanent denuclearization has not been achieved. The 60-day timeframe merely opens a window for negotiations, not a definitive resolution. Iran has a history of employing similar tactics. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deferred the nuclear question rather than resolving it, during which time Iran expanded its enrichment capabilities. This new memorandum of understanding risks repeating that pattern.
The Iranian leadership has historically used incremental compliance to buy time. The regime’s primary objective is survival, which defines its own version of victory. If Iran emerges from these 60 days of negotiations with its enrichment infrastructure intact and its frozen assets unfrozen, it will have effectively preserved its strategic position at an acceptable cost.
Trump’s Broader Vision
President Trump is not framing this negotiation solely as a ceasefire. On Sunday, he used his Truth Social platform to link the Iran negotiations with a wider regional realignment. He expressed gratitude to Middle Eastern countries for their support and cooperation, anticipating further enhancement and strengthening through their potential adherence to the historic Abraham Accords. He even mused about the possibility of the Islamic Republic of Iran joining. According to Axios, Trump informed leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, and the UAE during a Saturday conference call that he expects their nations to sign peace agreements with Israel once the Iran conflict concludes. Senior administration officials have described this framework as “Abraham Accords Plus.”
This vision is strategically sound and remarkably ambitious. Iran’s clerical leadership has consistently refused to recognize Israel and remains committed to its destruction. Any accord that necessitates Israeli recognition would be a concession that no sitting Iranian leadership could politically afford to make domestically.
Iran’s Weapon No Bomb Could Match
Iran’s most potent weapon in this conflict was never a nuclear device. The clerical leadership understood from the outset that their geographical position provided leverage that no air campaign could dislodge. The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes daily, exerted significant economic pressure on the global community without Iran needing to win a single military engagement.
This leverage is precisely why Gulf states, global markets, and energy-dependent economies strongly advocated for de-escalation. Iran, despite losing most of the direct fighting, managed to retain the leverage it held upon entering the conflict. This is a lesson Tehran will not soon forget.
The Opposition Casualty
Prior to the conflict, anti-regime sentiment within Iran was palpable and growing. However, wars that fail to topple regimes often serve to strengthen them. Foreign attacks tend to intensify nationalism, and wartime crackdowns suppress dissent. Current reports indicate an increase in internal repression as the regime consolidates its control. The conflict may have inadvertently weakened Iran’s anti-regime forces at a moment when they appeared most potent – an outcome that no military strike package could have foreseen or rectified.
History’s Verdict
History is unlikely to be kind to the architects of this war. America expended significant resources, including blood, a substantial portion of its arsenal, financial capital, and strategic credibility. The Iranian regime, however, survived intact. Its nuclear program, while set back by the June 2025 strikes, remains a subject of negotiation rather than a foreclosed issue. Proxy networks continue to be armed, and the Strait of Hormuz remains a critical chokepoint that Tehran knows how to exploit.
The precedents are cause for serious consideration. Hezbollah, though bloodied, emerged from the 2006 Lebanon war politically emboldened. The Taliban outlasted two decades of U.S. military pressure. North Vietnam, despite suffering devastating losses after the Tet Offensive, ultimately prevailed in the political contest.
Cuba would do well to study these historical records. The Trump administration is currently developing military options against Havana, drawing upon a pressure template similar to the one applied to Iran. However, Iran’s experience demonstrated that airpower and naval blockades alone do not instigate political transformation against a regime that is optimized for survival. Before Washington commits to another military campaign against an ideologically entrenched government, a thorough and honest assessment of the Iran situation is imperative.
America showcased overwhelming military power in this conflict. Iran, in turn, displayed remarkable political endurance. As previously argued in April, when Operation Epic Fury lacked a clearly defined political end state, the Clausewitzian standard necessitates a critical question: did military force effectively serve a coherent political objective?
If the Iranian regime emerges intact, with the capability to enrich uranium on a monitored and temporary basis, and retains the leverage of the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint it already knows how to utilize – then this fundamental question remains unanswered.
A memorandum of understanding will not resolve it. Sixty days of negotiation will not resolve it. The true resolution will be determined by Iran’s actions when the clock runs out.
