Trump’s Weak Compromise
If finalized in its current form, the preliminary “agreement” between the United States and Iran drafted in recent hours would represent the greatest humiliation for American diplomacy since the fall of Saigon in 1975 and Kabul in 2021. The 14 proposed points read as though they were dictated by the Iranian regime and only reluctantly accepted by Donald Trump. As previously reported several times in our newspaper, this agreement is evidence that the White House is desperate to rush out of the predicament it has gotten itself into — even more so than a besieged and bombarded Iran.
It is not difficult to find signs of this imbalance in the draft. Article 2 states that Iran and the United States “undertake to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs.” Thus, a war waged by Washington by killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in an attempt to force regime change in Iran ends with the exact opposite outcome. Not only does it leave Iran with an even more militarized regime, but also with a formal commitment from the U.S. not to dare try to overthrow it again. This is a far cry from the illusion of an America that “creates its own reality.” The U.S. has not only failed to achieve the main objective of the war, but the White House is now pledging to abandon its mission. Moreover, the Islamic Republic is now reclaiming the waters of Hormuz and has unveiled a formidable deterrent strategy in its ability to block passage, should it believe that the White House has broken its promise.
Article 5 addresses the reopening of traffic into and out of the Gulf, theoretically at "no charge.” It reads: "the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements … for the safe passage of commercial vessels [including mine clearance].” This way, the regime maintains control over dangerous areas, while European countries seeking to regain a role in the crisis through mine-removal efforts receive further confirmation of their marginality. Most importantly, the possibility of a passage toll on the strait, supposedly ruled out, implicitly reemerges: Iran will “conduct dialogue” with Oman — which borders with Hormuz on its southern shore — “to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz.” This lays the groundwork for Tehran to demand payment for providing ships with “safe” navigation: a de facto toll.
The controversial Article 6 reads: “The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Trump immediately clarified that the U.S. government will not contribute a single cent to the fund, which effectively looks like compensation for the aggression. Yet, the principle of compensation for one of the world’s worst regimes has now been put in writing. Vice President JD Vance has already stated that the Gulf states will be asked to contribute. Now, imagine this: The Gulf states have been dragged into an American war without so much as a warning from the White House, which then failed to defend them as Iran retaliated against them with thousands of missiles and drones. Now the United States is asking them to pay reparations to Iran.
How will this affect the credibility of the United States as a leader of international alliances? It looks just as bad as the American commitment (Article 10 of the agreement) to suspend all sanctions on oil, gas and petrochemical industries for Iran, effective immediately. Without waiting for nuclear negotiations. Without the slightest inkling that Tehran is willing to discuss its ballistic missiles or its control and support of groups — such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis — that in recent years have not only blocked access to our ports through the Suez Canal and attacked Israel, but also violently oppressed Palestinians in Gaza. On this matter, the draft does not even hint at the possibility of future negotiations.
In exchange, Trump obtains Iran’s commitment to negotiate on its nuclear program, articulated in a way that appears to mock him (Article 8): Iran “reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.” However false the statement may be, this is the same position Iran held when signing the agreement with Barack Obama and the European powers in 2015, as well as in recent negotiations with the current administration. The use of the term “reaffirms” was a deliberate choice by the Revolutionary Guards to signal that Trump has failed to defeat them. And that’s not all: The phrasing of Article 8 regarding the nuclear issue is ambiguous enough to require Iran to discuss enriched uranium, but not other aspects of the nuclear program. Compared with Obama’s 2015 agreement, the setback is undeniable: That deal had effectively halted enrichment activities, which only resumed after Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018.
Essentially, the United States will have to provide Iran with billions of dollars in various forms in order to achieve a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz that remains more precarious than it was last February. And on the nuclear issue, everything remains extremely vague. But above all, the final article (Article 14) is a clear signal: “The final deal will be endorsed by a binding United Nations Security Council resolution.” This comes from the same Trump who despises multilateral organizations and has withdrawn the U.S. from 31 U.N. agencies. It is hard to imagine that he was the one to request a binding Security Council vote; therefore, it must have been Iran’s decision. And Iran certainly did so under pressure from a country with veto power in that organization: China. This way, Beijing enters the agreement with a formal right of intervention.
There is no doubt that this crisis undermines America’s prestige. The U.S. has been unable to bend Iran to its will and is too politically divided to sustain a more complex military operation. At the same time, it elevates China’s global role as the guarantor of energy markets and architect of the Iran deal. However, in the long run, a world led by China could only make the American hegemony of the past seem generous and tolerant by comparison. Even Trump’s version of it.
It is not difficult to find signs of this imbalance in the draft. Article 2 states that Iran and the United States “undertake to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and to refrain from interfering in each other's internal affairs.” Thus, a war waged by Washington by killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in an attempt to force regime change in Iran ends with the exact opposite outcome. Not only does it leave Iran with an even more militarized regime, but also with a formal commitment from the U.S. not to dare try to overthrow it again. This is a far cry from the illusion of an America that “creates its own reality.” The U.S. has not only failed to achieve the main objective of the war, but the White House is now pledging to abandon its mission. Moreover, the Islamic Republic is now reclaiming the waters of Hormuz and has unveiled a formidable deterrent strategy in its ability to block passage, should it believe that the White House has broken its promise.
Article 5 addresses the reopening of traffic into and out of the Gulf, theoretically at "no charge.” It reads: "the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements … for the safe passage of commercial vessels [including mine clearance].” This way, the regime maintains control over dangerous areas, while European countries seeking to regain a role in the crisis through mine-removal efforts receive further confirmation of their marginality. Most importantly, the possibility of a passage toll on the strait, supposedly ruled out, implicitly reemerges: Iran will “conduct dialogue” with Oman — which borders with Hormuz on its southern shore — “to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz.” This lays the groundwork for Tehran to demand payment for providing ships with “safe” navigation: a de facto toll.
The controversial Article 6 reads: “The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Trump immediately clarified that the U.S. government will not contribute a single cent to the fund, which effectively looks like compensation for the aggression. Yet, the principle of compensation for one of the world’s worst regimes has now been put in writing. Vice President JD Vance has already stated that the Gulf states will be asked to contribute. Now, imagine this: The Gulf states have been dragged into an American war without so much as a warning from the White House, which then failed to defend them as Iran retaliated against them with thousands of missiles and drones. Now the United States is asking them to pay reparations to Iran.
How will this affect the credibility of the United States as a leader of international alliances? It looks just as bad as the American commitment (Article 10 of the agreement) to suspend all sanctions on oil, gas and petrochemical industries for Iran, effective immediately. Without waiting for nuclear negotiations. Without the slightest inkling that Tehran is willing to discuss its ballistic missiles or its control and support of groups — such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis — that in recent years have not only blocked access to our ports through the Suez Canal and attacked Israel, but also violently oppressed Palestinians in Gaza. On this matter, the draft does not even hint at the possibility of future negotiations.
In exchange, Trump obtains Iran’s commitment to negotiate on its nuclear program, articulated in a way that appears to mock him (Article 8): Iran “reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons.” However false the statement may be, this is the same position Iran held when signing the agreement with Barack Obama and the European powers in 2015, as well as in recent negotiations with the current administration. The use of the term “reaffirms” was a deliberate choice by the Revolutionary Guards to signal that Trump has failed to defeat them. And that’s not all: The phrasing of Article 8 regarding the nuclear issue is ambiguous enough to require Iran to discuss enriched uranium, but not other aspects of the nuclear program. Compared with Obama’s 2015 agreement, the setback is undeniable: That deal had effectively halted enrichment activities, which only resumed after Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018.
Essentially, the United States will have to provide Iran with billions of dollars in various forms in order to achieve a reopening of the Strait of Hormuz that remains more precarious than it was last February. And on the nuclear issue, everything remains extremely vague. But above all, the final article (Article 14) is a clear signal: “The final deal will be endorsed by a binding United Nations Security Council resolution.” This comes from the same Trump who despises multilateral organizations and has withdrawn the U.S. from 31 U.N. agencies. It is hard to imagine that he was the one to request a binding Security Council vote; therefore, it must have been Iran’s decision. And Iran certainly did so under pressure from a country with veto power in that organization: China. This way, Beijing enters the agreement with a formal right of intervention.
There is no doubt that this crisis undermines America’s prestige. The U.S. has been unable to bend Iran to its will and is too politically divided to sustain a more complex military operation. At the same time, it elevates China’s global role as the guarantor of energy markets and architect of the Iran deal. However, in the long run, a world led by China could only make the American hegemony of the past seem generous and tolerant by comparison. Even Trump’s version of it.
Previous article![]( "Trump’s G7 Summit")
