Peace dotted line: Does the US and Iran have a chance to implement the deal

The United States and Iran have reached the first serious compromise in the negotiations. They agreed on the text of the 14-point memorandum, which is to be signed on June 19 in Switzerland. Moscow noted that Tehran, Washington and the mediators jointly managed to stop the conflict, which threatened to set the entire region on fire. However, there are still controversial points in the document, and Israel has stated that it does not plan to follow the letter of this agreement. This means that there is a possibility that the "deal" will fail again. And even if Iran and the United States sign a memorandum, their path to a real agreement will remain thorny, experts say. They also note the fact that Washington has failed to achieve the main goal of the military campaign — to provoke regime change in the Islamic Republic.

The United States and Iran have reached a preliminary agreement

The "historic memorandum" that Tehran and Washington plan to sign on June 19 in Geneva consists of 14 points. They focus on pressing issues of US-Iranian relations and, among other things, include the immediate cessation of armed confrontation on all fronts (including Lebanon), the withdrawal of troops, and the lifting of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian ports. They also contain abstract points, such as the US commitment not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs and the parties' interest in continuing negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program.

Even taking into account the fact that the memorandum is considered only a "preface" to the agreement and should contribute to the development of a permanent guarantee mechanism under the auspices of the UN Security Council, US President Donald Trump considered reaching an interim compromise sufficient reason to announce that the "deal" he promised had been implemented.

"Congratulations to everyone! I hereby authorize the opening of the Strait of Hormuz to the free and free passage of ships, and at the same time authorize the immediate lifting of the naval blockade of the United States. Ships of the world, start the engines. Let the oil flow!" the Republican wrote on Truth Social.

The Iranian side reacted with restraint: the Supreme National Security Council only dryly confirmed the conclusion of the agreement. At the same time, the Central Headquarters of the Iranian Armed Forces, Khatam al-Anbiya, which coordinated the main combat operations, said that the Iranian people, the country's armed forces and the resistance front imposed their will on the "enemies" and proved by force that there is no other way but to admit defeat and surrender to the Iranian people. After some time, the Iranian media and the public joined the "national rejoicing". Individual speeches by conservative groups calling for "continuing the war until a convincing victory" were soon drowned out by positive appeals.

Despite the fact that the United States, even with the indicated concessions, considers itself the "undisputed winners" in the conflict, it has failed to achieve the main goal of the military campaign. Namely, to provoke a regime change in the Islamic Republic and force it to capitulate under pressure from within. In the near future, Washington will have to seriously reassess its approach to maintaining influence in the Middle East, including taking into account the "lessons" of the confrontation with Iran.

Anyway, a bad peace is better than a good war. This is understood both in Washington and in Tehran. That is why they strive to stabilize relations and reach stable agreements, even if certain minor disagreements persist. As Russian President Vladimir Putin noted in a recent conversation with Trump, Tehran, Washington and the mediators jointly managed to stop the conflict, which threatened to set the entire region on fire. And although the path to a final settlement is long and thorny, the search for constructive solutions has begun.

The current content of the memorandum (distributed by the Iranian media) is more in the interests of Tehran than Washington, as it includes clauses on easing the sanctions regime, freezing hostilities and easing pressure on Iran over the nuclear project, political analyst Dastan Tokoldoshev told Izvestia.

"Only a small part of the proposed points correlate with the strategic interests of the United States, namely, Iran's refusal to build nuclear weapons and the complete opening of the Strait of Hormuz,— Tokoldoshev stressed.

At the same time, the expert is confident that the Iranians have no reason to "celebrate victory" yet, especially given the contradictions in views on the conflict among the US leadership and Trump's general unpredictability. There is still no consensus within the Republican team on exactly what the final deal should look like, although there is an understanding of which points should remain in the final version (first of all, Iran's legal obligation not to develop nuclear weapons).

Apparently, the White House expects to take advantage of the gap between the signing of the memorandum and the finalizing of the deal to make a final decision. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff usually advocate a tougher approach. Vice President J.D. Vance has a softer position. But they periodically change their views on individual issues.

However, some points of the agreement are questionable. In particular, the US commitment to transfer $300 billion to Iran for the reconstruction of the affected Iranian facilities. In theory, the "compensation tranche" should be the first step towards the release of frozen Iranian assets abroad and the gradual lifting of sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Nevertheless, the United States has left itself a number of legal loopholes that will allow it to delay the process, including demanding that Iran demonstrate compliance with the terms of its peaceful nuclear program and abandon regional expansion.

Israel did not accept the terms of peace

The Iranian-American agreement was not supported by Israel. They perceived it as an encroachment on national security, since the memorandum in its current version restricts the freedom of action of the army in Lebanon; it forces not only to stop the offensive in the south and strikes in the central part of this country, but also to eliminate outposts in the occupied territories.

In addition, the Israeli leadership is clearly hurt by the fact that it has received information about the "compromise option" among the latter, as an already accomplished fact. Even though Trump tried to use his personal charm to convince Benjamin Netanyahu to accept the deal, the Israeli leadership refused to comply with the "Lebanese clause" of the memorandum.

Defense Minister Yisrael Katz stressed that the IDF will remain in the security zones in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza indefinitely in order to protect the border and Israeli settlements from possible attacks from there. At the same time, the minister noted that the territories will be cleared of local residents and infrastructure as part of the continuation of the border security policy. "We oppose the withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon, despite all existing and future pressure," he said.

Some odious figures of the Israeli establishment, such as National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, even stated that they "do not intend to obey the United States" in the fight against the "terrorist threat" from Lebanon.

"Every drone or rocket launch into Israeli territory from Lebanon will lead to an Israeli strike on Dahiya," Ben-Gvir promised.

Israel really has a reason to remain committed to the current model of confrontation with the Lebanese Hezbollah, since the tactics of "asymmetric responses" have helped the Jewish state to form a new balance of deterrence and offset the consequences of constant shelling of its northern territories.

At the same time, the American-Iranian agreements are not expected to become binding for the Israeli elites, Alexei Yurk, a researcher at the Center for Middle East Studies at the IMEMO RAS, said in an interview with Izvestia. In particular, because the White House did not offer Israel anything in return for the "operational costs" incurred.

— Apparently, Trump's angry shouts do not lead to the desired result. Of course, the American president still has powerful levers of pressure on Israel in the form of military aid. It is unlikely that Trump will use them, although he has repeatedly demonstrated that nothing is impossible for him," the expert noted.

Despite the risks of the truce being disrupted by the Israeli side, negotiators from Iran and the United States remain cautiously optimistic and are working to expand the negotiating framework. Among other things, the parties intend to hold preparatory meetings in Doha earlier this week before signing the agreement to confirm the seriousness of the plans and promptly resolve minor differences.

Whether the negotiations will be direct has not yet been disclosed, but such a step in any case indicates an increase in mutual trust. In addition, the preliminary meetings should form an additional window of communication to respond to possible violations of the memorandum.

However, the successful signing of the agreement does not guarantee lasting peace. It only paves the way for the development of the final version of the deal. And time is working against diplomats in this case: Iran and the United States have about two months to develop a mechanism for guarantees, including on issues related to Iran's nuclear and missile programs, as well as the sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic.

If no compromise is found by that time, the symbolic significance of the memorandum will be exhausted, leading to new tensions between Washington and Tehran. And Israel can take advantage of this, where they believe that the United States abandoned military pressure on Iran too soon.