The end of Netanyahu’s War? U.S.–Iran ceasefire talks reshape the Middle East

Steven Sahiounie, journalist and political commentator

 

As reports emerge of an impending memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran, the Middle East may be approaching the conclusion of one of the most consequential conflicts of the twenty-first century. If finalized, the agreement could bring an end not only to direct hostilities between Washington and Tehran but also to interconnected battlefronts stretching from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf.

For many observers, this conflict will be remembered as “Netanyahu’s War” — a confrontation that ultimately drew the United States into a costly and controversial military campaign whose stated objectives remain only partially fulfilled.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s deal with Iran will hinge upon Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If Israel defies the terms of the deal by striking Lebanon, the deal is off, and the war begins again. From past experience, Israel is likely to defy Trump, and is never held to account, even if it costs American lives.

Ambitious War Aims, Uncertain Results

When the United States entered the conflict alongside Israel, Trump articulated an expansive list of objectives. These included the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, the elimination of its ballistic missile capabilities, and, according to numerous statements from officials and commentators, pressure on the Iranian political system itself.

More than three months later, however, the outcome appears far more complex.

The Iranian government remains in power. Tehran retains control over its enriched uranium stockpiles, and its nuclear infrastructure remains a central issue for future negotiations rather than a resolved military objective. Furthermore, Iranian ballistic missiles reportedly continued targeting American and Israeli military positions until the final stages of the conflict. While stockpiles of costly American weaponry became surprisingly low, the Iranian weapons were still readily available.

At the same time, Iran suffered extensive damage. Israeli and American operations reportedly succeeded in eliminating numerous senior political and military figures, while also damaging key infrastructure, including oil facilities, energy networks, naval assets, and air-defense systems.

These realities have created a situation in which neither side can convincingly claim total victory.

A Strategic Setback for Washington?

Critics of the war argue that the United States failed to achieve the broad international coalition-building success that characterized previous military campaigns such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Unlike that conflict, Washington reportedly found itself largely supported only by Israel during this campaign. This lack of international participation has led some analysts to question whether American diplomatic influence has diminished significantly compared to previous decades.

Equally important are claims that American military installations across the Gulf region sustained substantial damage during the conflict. Satellite imagery and various media reports have fueled debates regarding the vulnerability of U.S. bases and the effectiveness of American defensive systems under sustained missile attacks.

If these assessments prove accurate, the conflict may be remembered not only for its political consequences but also for exposing vulnerabilities in the military posture of the world’s leading superpower.

Iran’s Mixed Outcome

While Iranian officials and supporters have portrayed the conflict as evidence of national resilience, Tehran’s losses were substantial.

The war exposed significant security weaknesses within the Iranian state. Senior commanders and officials from multiple levels of leadership were reportedly assassinated with remarkable precision. Strategic facilities were targeted repeatedly, and parts of Iran’s air-defense network were degraded.

Yet despite these setbacks, Iran demonstrated an ability to continue military operations throughout much of the conflict. According to military assessments cited during the war, Tehran maintained enough missile capability to sustain pressure on regional adversaries despite extensive bombardment.

This has allowed Iranian officials to argue that the country preserved its core deterrent capabilities despite suffering severe damage.

The Nuclear Question Remains Unresolved

Netanyahu has publically threatened that Iran was two-weeks away from making a nuclear bomb since 1992. In those 32 years, Iran never made a nuke, and has repeatedly stated it is not their intention to do so ever. 32 years is more than enough for them to have made a bomb, and according to the nuclear watchdogs, there were not even close to doing so. This demonstrates the core issue between Iran and Israel has nothing to do with nuclear bombs. The issue is the brutal military occupation of Palestine. Netanyahu uses the nuclear threat like a baseball bat, swinging it at Iran. The fact that Trump believed Netanyahu’s unfounded claim demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding by the President of the world’s superpower. It is no wonder key intelligence officials have resigned.

One of the most significant conclusions emerging from the conflict is that the Iranian nuclear issue remains fundamentally unresolved.

Although military strikes reportedly damaged portions of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, intelligence assessments have continued to suggest that Tehran retains the technical capacity necessary to advance its nuclear program should it choose to do so.

Consequently, the focus is now shifting from the battlefield to the negotiating table.

The expected negotiations following the signing of the memorandum of understanding are likely to center on uranium enrichment, nuclear monitoring mechanisms, sanctions relief, and long-term guarantees regarding Iran’s nuclear activities.

Lebanon at the Center of the Negotiations

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the emerging agreement is the prominent role assigned to Lebanon.

Iranian officials have repeatedly emphasized that the war in Lebanon is inseparable from the broader conflict with Iran. According to multiple statements from Tehran, the memorandum reportedly references Lebanon several times and includes provisions related to sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the cessation of military operations.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has reportedly stressed that any continued Israeli military presence in Lebanese territory would constitute a violation of the agreement’s principles.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu has publicly maintained that Israeli forces will remain in designated security zones in southern Lebanon.

This fundamental disagreement suggests that Lebanon could become the first major test of any future ceasefire arrangement.

Should Israeli forces remain in disputed areas, Hezbollah is expected to face increasing pressure to continue military operations, raising questions about the durability of any broader regional settlement.

The Reported Memorandum of Understanding

Although no official text has yet been publicly released, several media organizations have published details of what they describe as a fourteen-point framework agreement.

According to those reports, the proposed memorandum would include:

An immediate and permanent end to military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon.

Mutual commitments by Iran and the United States to refrain from hostile actions.

Negotiations toward a comprehensive final agreement within sixty days.

The lifting of the U.S. maritime blockade against Iran.

The gradual restoration of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Future economic reconstruction initiatives for Iran.

A roadmap for lifting international and American sanctions.

Iranian commitments not to develop nuclear weapons.

The release of frozen Iranian financial assets.

Creation of mechanisms to monitor implementation and compliance.

Iranian media outlets have stated that the text published by international media does not necessarily represent the final version and have indicated that the complete agreement may not be released immediately following its signing.

Economic Implications

The prospect of a ceasefire has already affected global energy markets.

Reports regarding the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the potential return of Iranian oil exports have contributed to lower oil prices and renewed optimism among energy traders.

Several reports suggest that sanctions waivers could be implemented rapidly, allowing Iranian crude oil and petrochemical exports to return to international markets even before a comprehensive settlement is finalized.

If implemented, such measures could significantly reshape global energy flows and provide a major economic boost to Iran after years of sanctions and isolation.

A War Without Winners?

Ultimately, the conflict may enter history as a war that produced no clear victor.

The United States and Israel demonstrated overwhelming military power and inflicted significant damage on Iran’s military and economic infrastructure. Yet they appear to have fallen short of permanently eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities or compelling fundamental political change in Tehran.

Iran survived the conflict and maintained enough strategic leverage to enter negotiations from a position of relative confidence. Yet it did so at the cost of severe military, economic, and human losses.

For Washington, the war raises difficult questions about the limits of military power in an increasingly multipolar world. For Tehran, it highlights both the strengths and vulnerabilities of its regional strategy.

The coming weeks will determine whether the reported memorandum of understanding marks the beginning of a lasting diplomatic settlement or merely a temporary pause in a conflict whose underlying causes remain unresolved.

What is clear is that the Middle East stands at a historic crossroads. The decisions made in Switzerland in the coming days could shape the region’s political and security landscape for years to come. However, everything achieved between the Trump administration and the Iranian government might be destroyed if Netanyahu and the extremist blow-up the deal by carrying out airstrikes and ground incursions in Lebanon.

Steven Sahiounie is a two-time award-winning journalist.