The ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran is facing serious challenges, just hours after it was concluded early on Wednesday morning. As both Washington and Tehran claimed victory in the 39-day war, Israel launched massive strikes against several targets across Lebanon, including residential buildings in Beirut.
Israel was taken aback by US President Donald Trump’s last-minute decision to accept a Pakistani-brokered offer of a two-week ceasefire, effective immediately. On Tuesday, Trump had stunned the world by threatening, in his most incendiary statement yet, to reduce Iran to rubble if his deadline passed that night without Tehran opening up the Strait of Hormuz and agreeing to a deal.
Iran rejected the ultimatum but last-minute mediation by Islamabad produced a breakthrough. At the eleventh hour, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, delivered Tehran’s conditional acceptance, with Iran’s 10-point plan to serve as the basis for negotiations.
Trump, for his part, tweeted that Iran had already accepted most of Washington’s 15-point proposal to end hostilities.
Israel was quick to announce that while it would honor the ceasefire deal and halt its attacks on Iran, the Lebanese front would not be included in the pause. Following the subsequent Israeli strikes on Lebanon on Wednesday, Iran declared that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz again and reconsidering its participation in the truce, and threatened retaliation against Israeli violations.
What the war did expose, unmistakably, was the degree of Israeli influence over America’s foreign-policy priorities.
Osama Al-Sharif
Having been offered a diplomatic off-ramp to end a war that has proven as unpopular domestically as it is abroad, Trump now finds himself in a position in which to safeguard the truce he must order the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to stop bombing Lebanon.
Negotiations between the US and Iran are scheduled to take place in Islamabad on Friday. To say that a vast gulf separates both sides would be an understatement.
Iran’s 10-point plan includes such sweeping and contentious demands as: recognition of its control over the Strait of Hormuz; acknowledgment of its uranium-enrichment rights; compensation for all war-related damages; withdrawal of US combat forces from the region, including the Arabian Gulf; and cessation of hostilities on all fronts.
The American plan, while offering political and economic incentives such as the lifting of sanctions, insists on: Tehran dismantling its three main nuclear sites; halting uranium enrichment on Iranian soil; a binding pledge never to develop or acquire nuclear weapons; caps on missile production based on range and quantity; the transfer of Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium; and an end to support for proxy groups across the region.
Iran had already rejected most of the demands in the US plan before the war began. Tehran now sees itself as being in a position to drive a hard bargain, in the belief that Trump’s gunboat diplomacy has failed.
While Iran insists its strikes in the region were acts of self-defense, its targeting of neighboring states has left a lasting mark on regional relationships that will not easily be repaired.
Iran’s claim of control over the Strait of Hormuz, a demand that did not exist before the war began, will never be accepted by the Gulf states and will be contested in international courts. It remains unclear how Washington intends to navigate this formidable new obstacle.
Trump has hinted that the US will use the two-week pause in hostilities to replenish its munitions, signaling he is prepared to resume hostilities if negotiations fail. Yet he has also described Iran’s 10-point plan as “workable,” a characterization that stunned Israeli officials and suggested Washington might be more flexible than its public posture implies.
The war has cost the US tens of billions of dollars, and the political damage to Trump and the Republican Party will become clear at the US midterm elections in November. Beyond the domestic toll, the conflict has opened deep fissures in the North Atlantic alliance and dealt a serious blow to America’s standing on the global stage.
It has also delivered a damaging blow to Israel’s image, not least in the US. The New York Times reported this week that Netanyahu played a pivotal role in drawing Trump into military action against Iran, meeting him in the Oval Office and Situation Room on Feb. 11 and delivering a detailed presentation arguing that Tehran was ripe for regime change.
Netanyahu reportedly outlined a joint operation to destroy Iran’s missile program, incite internal uprisings and topple the regime, while downplaying risks such as retaliation and disruptions to the Strait of Hormuz. None of those objectives were achieved. What the war did expose, unmistakably, was the degree of Israeli influence over America’s foreign-policy priorities.
The conflict has left Gulf states reeling from Iranian aggression, and raised serious questions about the durability of their dependence on American protection. In the eyes of many regional leaders, Washington’s overriding priority is Israel’s security, with the well-being of other allies coming a distant second.
What is even more unsettling is the prospect that Trump might ultimately concede to some of Iran’s more controversial demands, an outcome that would bolster Tehran’s regional influence rather than diminish it.
For Israel, the war for which Netanyahu had long campaigned has fallen well short of its stated goals. The Islamic Republic is weakened but has survived and might yet secure political and economic gains if a deal with Trump is reached.
Israeli ambitions to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon and establish a security buffer extending to the Litani River remain unfulfilled. In the words of one Israeli politician, Netanyahu has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The truce might collapse at any moment but it is unlikely that Trump is in any mood to resume the conflict unless compelled to do so. One can only hope that this time he will not allow Netanyahu to set the US agenda. The political and economic fallout from this war of choice has been enormous for all parties. In the end, it became a zero-sum game, denying a decisive victory to everyone.
Trump would be better served by refocusing his attention on cementing a legacy as a peacemaker. The Gaza catastrophe continues to unfold, months after he convened his advisory Board of Peace. Making good on that promise to rebuild Gaza and broker a durable settlement could yet become his lasting legacy, one that replaces an inconclusive war of his own making with something history might look upon more kindly.
BY: Writer Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman. X: @plato010
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
