Is the agreement truly at an end? Since the United States and Israel initiated hostilities in Iran, discussions about concluding the conflict have persisted, with numerous unsuccessful attempts. Recall President Trump’s claim in March that the war would be “finished quickly.” Also recall when JD Vance prepared to travel to Islamabad for negotiations in April but ultimately did not.
This development may differ from previous attempts. Several factors suggest the deal could endure, yet significant challenges between the United States and Iran remain unresolved, and Israel’s involvement adds further complexity. This article examines the reasons the agreement might hold and the reasons it may fail.
Will it stick?
The announcement reflected Trump’s characteristic style.
Following days of alternating threats to strike Iran “very hard” with assurances that a deal was imminent, the president announced on Sunday — coinciding with his 80th birthday — that the United States and Iran had reached an agreement. In a brief call with colleague David Sanger, while a birthday celebration was being prepared on the White House lawn, he described the development as positive news.
Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz would become permanently toll‑free and that Iran would cease high‑level nuclear enrichment indefinitely, asserting that the conflict had improved the regional balance in America’s favor.
The agreement’s text has not been made public, even though both parties have digitally signed it. While the specifics of Iran’s future nuclear enrichment remain unsettled, Israel continues its bombing campaign in Lebanon, and Iran’s foreign minister has indicated a preference for imposing fees on the Strait of Hormuz rather than tolls.
In other words, the president appears to be describing Iranian concessions that have not actually been secured, consistent with his typical approach.
What implications does this have for the agreement’s durability, given the persistent disagreements between the two nations and potential divergent interpretations of its terms?
Colleague Lara Jakes presents three arguments supporting a durable peace and three counterarguments expressing skepticism.
Key factors that could support the agreement include the war’s significant strain on both the United States and Iran.
Both Parties Seek to Keep the Strait of Hormuz Open. Iran initially closed the strait, a critical conduit for global oil and gas, thereby exerting leverage over energy prices and economic stability. Trump’s subsequent counter‑blockade imposed economic hardship on Iran by restricting its oil exports, raising the risk that prolonged restrictions could damage its oil production capacity.
Both Sides Have Depleted Significant Military Resources. The United States has redeployed substantial troops and air‑defense systems to the Gulf, straining its stockpiles and affecting other theaters such as Ukraine and Taiwan. Iran has reportedly launched over 1,500 missiles and 4,700 drones at Gulf states since the conflict began, though U.S. assessments indicate it still retains about 70 % of its missile arsenal.
President Trump Faces Pressure to Claim a Victory. Trump campaigned on a promise to end wars, not start them. Iran has become a political liability, contributing to his historically low approval ratings and prompting defections within his own party, just months before the midterm elections.
Potential Reasons for Collapse
Numerous obstacles could cause the agreement to collapse, with Israel’s stance and the unresolved Iranian nuclear issue presenting particular complications.
Israel Opposes the Agreement. It advocated for the war and initially encouraged Trump to strike Iran. It subsequently expanded the conflict to involve Hezbollah in Lebanon. When Trump appeared close to finalizing an agreement, Israel conducted strikes near Beirut, prompting him to describe Netanyahu as “a difficult guy.” Iran insists any peace settlement must address Lebanon, whereas Israel resists constraints on its actions.
The Nuclear Issue Remains Unsettled. Trump framed the war as a means to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Iranian officials maintain their program is for peaceful purposes and assert a right to uranium enrichment. Negotiators have yet to determine the duration and scope of any enrichment pause, permissible enrichment levels, and the disposition of existing enriched uranium stockpiles — issues that took the Obama administration nearly two years to resolve.
Sanctions and Frozen Assets. Iran seeks the removal of sanctions and the unfreezing of billions of dollars held in foreign banks. It is uncertain whether these matters are included in the current framework. Trump has repeatedly criticized Obama for granting Iran relief on both sanctions and nuclear provisions in the 2015 agreement, and he remains wary of appearing to repeat that approach.
The Israel‑Lebanon dynamic could determine whether the agreement endures beyond a two‑month period; if Israel refrains from obstructing a sustained peace effort, negotiations on the nuclear deal may continue.
The agreement is slated for formal signing on Friday in Geneva, marking the initial step toward a definitive end to the conflict. Whether a subsequent phase will follow remains uncertain.
