A US-Iran 'deal' that resolves little and could make things worse

The Trump administration is famous for puffing up the significance of anything it does.

- Jonathan Eyal

So, it was no surprise that every US decision-maker from President Donald Trump down has hailed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) concluded with Iran as a "peace deal".

Vice-President J.D. Vance went even further, claiming that the agreement "is going to fundamentally transform the Middle East for the next 50 years".

In reality, the document agreed between the US and Iran solves none of their differences; it is merely a starting point for further talks, which are likely to prove inconclusive.

Far from transforming one of the world's most turbulent regions into an oasis of peace for the next half a century, Iran and the US should consider themselves lucky if their MOU lasts for the next 60 days without bloodshed.

Nor can the deal be regarded as a great diplomatic victory for the US; history may well remember this document as one heralding the decline of American credibility and influence in the Middle East.

Trump ordered his military to attack Iran on Feb 28 because he bought into Israeli claims that the war would be short and result in the collapse of Iran's clerical regime. In public, however, Washington justified its attack with three demands: Iran should be stripped of its nuclear capabilities, it must accept limitations on its missile arsenal and it must give up its support for various Iranian proxy militias and armed groups in the Middle East.

The latest MOU not only fails to address these issues but actually also reinforces Iran's alliance with its most powerful regional proxy, Hezbollah in Lebanon, by accepting that a ceasefire in the Gulf is dependent on Israel ceasing to attack Hezbollah.

This is a significant concession no US president since Ronald Reagan was prepared to consider, something the Iranians understand only too well.