The elusive peace behind the truce pact

On June 15, Iran's Supreme National Security Council announced that, following months of negotiations, Tehran and Washington had finalized a memorandum of understanding (MoU) aimed at ending the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran that began on February 28. On the same day, U.S. President Donald Trump also declared the deal "done," with the Strait of Hormuz open and the naval blockade lifted.

Yet beneath the surface of this purported diplomatic breakthrough lies a far less reassuring reality. As Reuters and other outlets have noted, this is not a peace accord. It is a tactical timeout, a fragile, mutually convenient pause between two exhausted adversaries.

For Trump, the deal is a political remedy for pressing domestic woes. With inflation simmering, gun violence rising and midterm pressures mounting, the president desperately needs a foreign policy win. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz and stepping back from the brink offers a clean exit from a costly and risky confrontation.

Make no mistake: This is strategic retreat, not triumph. None of Washington's basic objectives like curtailing Iran's nuclear program or degrading its military capabilities have been achieved, let alone regime change. The U.S. has spent over 100 days deploying massive military assets and mobilizing diplomatic pressure, only to end where it began: with the Strait of Hormuz, the world's vital energy artery, as open as before and with an ayatollah still firmly in place as supreme leader.

In sharp contrast to Washington's triumphant rhetoric, Tehran has adopted a calm, detail-driven and strategically patient stance. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi has made it clear: His country will enter the proposed 60-day negotiation period for a final agreement only after verifying Washington's commitments to ending hostilities, lifting the blockade and releasing Iranian assets. Tehran has framed the talks around full sanctions relief and economic reconstruction, rejecting Washington's attempt to limit discussions to non-proliferation. It could be a strategy using the pause to consolidate gains, stretch negotiations and wait for a more favorable geopolitical wind.

Notably, Israel, another key participant in the conflict, has already signaled its disdain for the deal. According to AP, an Israeli airstrike on Beirut's southern suburbs nearly derailed the agreement just before it was announced. While Trump offered a mild rebuke, he also claimed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supported the deal. For Israel, any deal that gives Iran breathing room is a strategic loss. In the coming 60 days, we can expect more strikes on Iranian-linked targets in Syria and Lebanon, a sustained effort to pull Washington back into confrontation.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states that have everything riding on the Strait of Hormuz were completely excluded from the talks. Washington's unilateral approach will only deepen their insecurity, pushing them toward diversified security arrangements. An already frayed alliance system will grow looser, and that is entirely America's own doing.

So where does this leave us? The MoU has hit the brakes but the engine is still running. Both sides are exhausted, but neither has abandoned the option of force. Trump has warned that if no final nuclear deal is reached in 60 days, he will restart military attacks or, in his words, make Washington "the guardian of the Middle East" in return for 20 percent of the region's revenues. In the meantime, Iran has vowed to undertake firm countermeasures, with its military remaining on full alert against U.S. breaches of faith.

The 60-day negotiation timeline itself appears overly ambitious and politically rhetorical rather than operationally feasible. The UN-endorsed 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on the Iranian nuclear program took years of arduous multilateral bargaining to resolve technical and sanctions-related disputes—and still proved fragile. Expecting an equally complex settlement plus additional arrangements for Iran's economic reconstruction within two months is unrealistic.

The real test lies not in the signing, but in the days that follow. Ultimately, the Middle East does not need more temporary truces imposed by external powers pursuing narrow interests. It needs, however utopian it may seem, a durable framework built on sovereignty, mutual respect and inclusive regional dialogue.