It was the first hours of the war that declared US and Israel against Iran, more than four months ago, when the President of the United States, Donald Trump, said with emphasis, in his first positions, that conflicts would end only with "unconditional surrender" of Tehran. However, the memorandum of understanding published this week and signed on Wednesday night by the two opposing parties (Israel is absent from the whole process) presents a completely different picture. Instead of a humiliated Tehran, the terms of the text outline a country that came out of the conflict not only unscathed politically (at least so far), but also with significant economic and diplomatic benefits.
The first and most obvious consequence of the agreement is to restore Iran's ability (after its ports were unblocked) to restart oil exports and collect billions of dollars in revenue, offering a significant economic breath to a regime under intense pressure.
At the same time, the two sides are preparing for a new and much more complex negotiation: the agreement that, according to Trump, will limit the Iranian nuclear programme and exclude any possibility of developing a weapon for the next 15 to 20 years.
For a president who often presents the negotiating pressure ("in all my life I have learned to make deals" he often says - densely with a mouth) as his most important political weapon, the choice to grant immediate economic benefits to Tehran raises questions even to his political allies.
At the same time, the wording of the memorandum leaves open the possibility of Iran claiming in the long term a permanent role of control or sovereignty in the Straits of Ormuz. Such a development contrasts with what US Foreign Minister Marco Rubio stated a few weeks ago, who had described any change in the free navigation regime that was in force before the war as unacceptable. At the same wavelength he moved in the previous days, in successive positions and American vice president J.D. Vance.
Frozen chapters and similarities with Obama policyThe memorandum also provides for a process that could lead to the release of Iranian billions of dollars assets, which have remained frozen in various countries for years.
Trump insists that these funds will be released only if Iran demonstrates "good behavior". However, critics of the agreement point out that the move strongly resembles the concessions made by the government of Barack Obama in 2015, which Trump himself has been condemning for years.
The American president often recalls that the United States achieved significant military results. During the war much of the Iranian navy was destroyed, air capabilities were neutralized, the country's defence industry was hit and rocket launchers were destroyed.
However, the objectives he had set himself at the beginning of the campaign were much wider: the complete elimination of the nuclear and missile programme (which Israel insisted on), the overthrow of the regime (also the main aim of the Netanyahu government) and, in some of his statements, even the American control of the Iranian oil industry.
Political reactions inside and in IsraelThe agreement already causes reactions both within the United States and Israel.
In the Republican Party, several MPs and senators express reservations, while Israel appears unhappy because it was left out of the final negotiations and fears that the new reality limits its ability to continue military operations against Hezbollah.
Close ally Benjamin Netanyahu, who according to Washington was informed prior to signing the terms of the agreement, has not yet been publicly placed, however the way he will react - diplomatically and in the field, as he does not seem willing to retreat from Lebanon - raises concerns.
At the same time, historians and analysts are expected to consider for years the lessons of a conflict that cost tens of billions of dollars in the United States and resulted in the death of 13 Americans and more than 3,000 Iranians, according to estimates to date.
Fear of the economic crisisPerhaps the most revealing explanation for the speed at which Trump sought to end the war came from him.
Speaking to reporters in the city of Evian-le-Ben, France, on the margins of the G7, he admitted that he did not want to be politically associated with former US president, Herbert Hoover, who identified himself with the stock market collapse and the Great Depression of the 1930s.
"He was always the president I didn't want to be," Trump said. "I didn't want to see financial disaster".
He later acknowledged that continuing the war could lead to serious oil shortages and new turmoil in international markets.
This, according to analysts, was Tehran's main weapon from the first day of the war. Iran invested in stopping energy flows, closing the Straits of Hormuz and attacks against critical infrastructure in the Gulf, causing fears of a global energy crisis.
The next phase: Regular delays from TehranThe history of nuclear negotiations shows that Tehran has gained considerable experience in the tactics of delays.
Former American negotiators point out that few know this process better than Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragci, who also participated in previous talks on the nuclear programme.
Iranian negotiators often questioned formalities, called for changes in each paragraph or redefined terms such as "nuclear research", allowing uranium enrichment activities to continue.
Trump himself already acknowledged that negotiations could last longer than the 60 days provided for in the memorandum.
The consequences on the regime and the insoluble nuclear issueIt is still too early to judge whether Trump will eventually be able to claim more achievements than this deal. If, at the next stage of the negotiations, it manages to persuade Iranians to transfer their nuclear fuel reserves out of the country — as President Obama had achieved in 2015 — and to stop all uranium enrichment activity for nearly two decades, which the Obama administration failed to secure, then it may be able to talk about a long-term victory.
If, too, the war turns out to destabilise Iranian leadership and sparked demonstrations and revolt, as Trump requested at the beginning of the conflict, then he could claim credit.
At present, however, the opposite seems to be happening. Instead of weakening the regime, Trump seems to have strengthened Iran's new leadership, which is allegedly driven by the new top leader, the injured and out of public view Mojtaba Khamenei, son of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the first blow of the war.
The Guards of the Islamic Revolution, who have been overseeing the country's nuclear program for years, seem to maintain full control. Nevertheless, a senior U.S. government official argued a few days ago that, achieving peace, Trump now forces this elite military corps to face the difficulties of governance.
Former high-ranking Obama administration officials, having long accepted Trump's criticism of the gaps and weaknesses of the 2015 nuclear agreement, thought it was time to answer.
"The only 'achievement' of the truce is probably the reopening of the Straits of Hormuz — which were open before the war began," former US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken wrote Wednesday. "And it seems that we are going to pay Iran to do this, through exceptions allowing exports of Iranian crude oil. Iran has now demonstrated that it can stop or slow the transit of oil, gas, fertilizers and other critical products on which much of the planet depends.".
Blinken, one of the main architects of the 2015 Agreement, concluded: "In the future it is almost certain that it will find ways to collect 'end' for safe transit, which will help further consolidate the regime.".
Although some Republicans expressed cautious optimism that Trump's strategy, based on peace through negotiations, may eventually yield, several hardliners towards Iran, as well as supporters of the "Americana First" doctrine, were not prepared to repeat the arguments in favour of the government's agreement.
Among the most critical were politicians who are near retirement and no longer have much to lose politically.
"Ronald Reagan turns to his grave", wrote on social media Louisiana Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who recently missed the internal party showdown after Trump supported his opponent. Cassidy argued that Iran's nuclear ambitions were "not limited" and that the war taught Iranians that they have much greater influence on the Straits of Hormuz and the global economy than they have believed to date. In fact, he described the conflict as "the biggest mistake of American foreign policy for decades".
However, the greatest danger may be different. When the Iranian leadership begins to remove the debris left behind by the 40 days of bombing and plans how to utilize the billions of dollars from oil exports expected to restart, it is likely to wonder whether the nuclear strategy that followed to date was the right one.
For more than 20 years, Iran has been very close to building a nuclear weapon without ever crossing the final line. His logic was that a "capacity to stay at the threshold" was sufficient to prevent a military attack from the United States and Israel. This allowed him to remain in the Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty and argue that his intentions were exclusively peaceful, while having security that he could in a few months acquire a nuclear weapon if he decided to.
The result was to be bombed in June 2025, in the 12-day war, and to receive a new attack in February 2026.
North Korea modelNorth Korea has taken a different course. He quickly went on to develop nuclear weapons, carried out the first successful nuclear test in 2006 and today has, according to US intelligence, an arsenal of at least 60 nuclear warheads.
It does not go unnoticed to nuclear experts that today Trump does not threaten North Korea. When he spoke to the New York Times on Sunday, he was asked if Iran could now follow the North Korean model.
Referring to Kim Young Eun, whom during his first term he had threatened with total destruction before meeting with him three times in a failed disarmament effort, Trump replied: "He has serious nuclear weapons". And he added: "This should never have been allowed".
He then wondered whether North Korea acquired nuclear at Clinton or Obama presidency — although the first test was carried out at George Bush presidency.
Trump avoided answering directly the question whether his decision to attack Iran could eventually force Tehran to follow the path of North Korea.
Instead, he insisted that his agreement would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and argued that Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, should thank him for preventing a nuclear threat against Israel.
"Whatever it takes," he said. "Saranda seven years", he said referring to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, "no one managed to do so. And we did. We did it the right way.".
History can finally vindicate him. However, it is too early to draw such a conclusion. Maybe even he knows that. His statements Wednesday morning implied that he maintained an alternative plan in case the deal failed. If the deal is not implemented, he warned, the United States will "return to bombings".