SouthernWorldwide.com – President Trump is poised to present the emerging Iran agreement as a testament to his “peace through strength” policy. He will likely contend that American military might compelled Tehran to the negotiating table, prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and alleviated the prolonged instability in the Strait of Hormuz.
While his claims regarding the military achievements hold merit, the true measure of any conflict lies not in the rhetoric that initiates it, but in the conditions it leaves in its wake. This is the enduring standard set by Carl von Clausewitz and the benchmark by which the impending agreement must be evaluated.
Military Successes Achieved
The United States and Israel secured significant battlefield victories. Iranian air defenses were degraded, missile sites were struck, naval capabilities were diminished, and key leaders within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) were neutralized. Tehran’s network of proxy forces also suffered considerable setbacks, underscoring the overwhelming military superiority of the U.S. and Israel.
Militarily, Iran bore a substantial cost. However, battlefield dominance does not automatically equate to strategic success.
The Emerging Deal Framework
President Trump announced on Saturday that a deal 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, followed by 60 days of nuclear negotiations. According to Axios, the draft memorandum of understanding commits Iran to foregoing the pursuit of nuclear weapons and to negotiating a suspension of its 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, verified agreement.
A senior Trump administration official stated on Sunday that Iran had, in principle, agreed to dispose of its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. However, the specific mechanism for this remains a point of contention. The Trump administration insists that the final deal must 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 that any credible denuclearization agreement would need to address. “Nobody disputes that the stockpile will be disposed of. The question is how,” the official noted.
The details of the agreement are fraught with complexity. Tehran disputes the U.S. characterization of the uranium surrender and maintains that sanctions relief must precede any such action. Issues such as enrichment levels, inspections, missile restrictions, and proxy operations remain unresolved.
Baca juga di sini: How a Rhodes Scholar with Cuban Ties Organized Hasan Piker's Havana Convoy
A Deferral, Not a Resolution
Permanent denuclearization has not been achieved. The 60-day negotiation window offers an opportunity for dialogue, not a definitive outcome. Tehran has a history of employing such tactics. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), for instance, deferred the nuclear question rather than resolving it, during which time Iran expanded its enrichment capabilities. This new memorandum of understanding risks perpetuating a similar pattern.
The Iranian leadership has historically managed to buy time through incremental compliance. The regime’s primary objective is survival, which it defines as victory. If Iran emerges from the 60-day negotiations with its enrichment infrastructure intact and its frozen assets unfrozen, it will have preserved its strategic position at an acceptable cost.
Trump’s Broader Strategic Vision
President Trump is not solely framing this as a ceasefire. On Sunday, he used his Truth Social platform to link the Iran negotiations to a wider regional realignment. He expressed gratitude to Middle Eastern countries for their support and cooperation, suggesting it would be further enhanced by their participation in the Abraham Accords. He even mused about the possibility of the Islamic Republic of Iran joining these accords.
According to Axios, Trump informed leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, and the UAE during a conference call on Saturday that he desires their nations to sign peace agreements with Israel once the conflict with Iran concludes. Senior administration officials have described this framework as “Abraham Accords Plus.”
This vision is strategically coherent and highly ambitious. Iran’s ayatollahs have consistently refused to recognize Israel and remain committed to its destruction. Any accord that necessitates Israeli recognition would represent a concession that no sitting Iranian leadership could politically survive domestically.
Iran’s Most Potent Weapon
Iran’s most formidable weapon in this conflict was never a nuclear device. The Iranian leadership understood from the outset that their geographical position provided them with 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 engage in any direct military confrontation.
This leverage is precisely why Gulf states, global markets, and energy-dependent economies exerted considerable pressure for de-escalation. Iran may have lost on the battlefield, but it retained the leverage it initiated the conflict with. This is a lesson Tehran will not soon forget.
The Unintended Consequence for Opposition
Prior to the conflict, anti-regime sentiment within Iran was increasingly visible. However, wars that fail to topple regimes often inadvertently strengthen them. Foreign attacks tend to intensify nationalist sentiments, and wartime crackdowns suppress dissent. Reports now indicate a heightened level of internal repression as the regime consolidates its control. The war may have weakened Iran’s internal opposition forces at a time when they appeared to be at their strongest – an outcome that no military strike package could have foreseen or rectified.
History’s Judgment
History is unlikely to be favorable to the architects of this war. The United States expended significant resources, including military assets, financial capital, and strategic credibility. The Iranian regime, however, survived intact. The nuclear program, while set back, was not eliminated by the June 2025 strikes and remains a subject of negotiation rather than a foreclosed outcome. Iran’s proxy networks continue to be armed, and the Strait of Hormuz remains a strategic choke point that Tehran knows how to exploit.
The precedents set by similar conflicts are sobering. Hezbollah emerged from the 2006 Lebanon war wounded but politically emboldened. The Taliban endured two decades of U.S. military pressure. North Vietnam, despite devastating losses after the Tet Offensive, ultimately prevailed in the political contest.
Cuba would do well to study these historical precedents. The Trump administration is currently developing military options against Havana, drawing upon a pressure template similar to that used against Iran. However, Iran’s experience demonstrated that airpower and naval blockades alone do not inherently lead to political transformation against a regime optimized for survival. Before Washington commits to another military campaign against an ideologically entrenched government, a thorough and honest assessment of the Iran ledger is imperative.
The United States showcased overwhelming military power in this conflict. Iran, in contrast, demonstrated remarkable political endurance. As argued previously, the Clausewitzian standard demands a critical question be answered: did military force serve a coherent political objective?
If the Iranian regime emerges from this period intact, with the capability to enrich uranium on a monitored and temporary basis, and retains the leverage of the Strait of Hormuz that it already knew how to wield – then that fundamental question remains unanswered.
A memorandum of understanding will not provide the answer. Sixty days of negotiation will not resolve it. What Iran does when the negotiation clock runs out will ultimately determine the outcome.
