The agreement between US and Iran, the first signed by an American and an Iranian president after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, is welcomed by its supporters as the agreement of the century.
But for the opponents of Tehran in the Middle East - from Israel to the Gulf countries and some parties in Lebanon - it is more like curse of the century: an agreement that could lead to an Iran more secure, legalized and, ultimately, more influential.
The President of the United States Donald Trump And his Iranian counterpart Masud Pezeskian signed this protocol on Wednesday., ending the war that began on 28 February. Trump chose to sign it in Versailles, on the sidelines of the G7 summit—a setting considered symbolic for the reconfiguration of the international order after the conflict.
The 14-point protocol prolongs the ceasefire (including Lebanon) for 60 days to give time and space for negotiations that will lead to a permanent settlement and address issues such as Iran's nuclear programme.
"For Washington and Tehran, it is a great opportunity - the agreement of the century, from which there is no turning back," Lebanese commentator Sarkis Naum said. "The possibility of success outweighs the risk of failure. Iran cannot withstand further financial punishment through sanctions and Trump has no motive to start a new war.".
Agreement considered defeat for Israel
Israeli analyst Danny Sitrinovic described the deal as ‘Destruction’ strategy. What had started as a joint, American-Israeli campaign to weaken or even overthrow the Islamic Republic regime was, in his view, transformed, in US recognition of Iran.
"We went to overthrow the regime with U.S. support and ended up with Washington legalising and strengthening this same regime we wanted to bring down," Sitrinovic, who is a researcher at Israel's Institute of National Security Studies, said.
The Agreement does not meet any of Israel's basic demands: does not provide for restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme or its proxies and does not include any clear plans to dismantle its nuclear installations. Even the Israeli army campaign in Lebanon is limited by the framework of the agreement imposed at Tehran's request.
The implications are political and strategic. The Agreement undermines Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's account of Iran and exposes the limits of his influence to an American president who was so far considered aligned with Israel.
Sitrinovic said Iran gained room for manoeuvre and with the agreement can consolidate its position, while deepening Israel's isolation. "Everything is bad. And they will get worse," he predicted.
If the agreement holds, Iran appears to ensure the strongest result: the end of the war, the gradual lifting of sanctions, the renewal of oil exports and the prospect of huge funds for reconstruction- alongside the indirect acceptance of his political system.
Washington, on the contrary, failed to achieve the goals shared with Israel: to overthrow the religious regime, to dismantle Iran's nuclear programme and to limit its influence on the region. Instead of reshaping Iran's position, the deal restores it.
The US and Israel began the war against Iran on 28 February, killing, on the first day, 86-year-old top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other high-ranking officials of the regime. The conflict escalated, causing the death of more than 7,000 people, mainly in Iran and Lebanon, while at the same time leading to an increase in energy prices and intensified fears of a food crisis in developing states.
Iran regains upper hand in Lebanon
For Lebanon, the agreement leans the balance towards Iran, strengthening the role of Tehran-backed Hezbollahand joining the country into a wider framework of US-Iran relations, while at the same time removing talks between Beirut and Israel. It commits Lebanon to the 60-day ceasefire, forcing all sides to stop operations on all fronts.
Lebanese President Joseph Aun warned last week that Iran cannot negotiate on behalf of Lebanon on issues such as cease-fire and Israel's departure from the southern part of his country.
However, sources adjacent to Hezbollah support the opposite: The U.S.-Iran channel strengthens Lebanon's position, upgrading it to a higher level negotiation. In their view, Tehran and Washington can push their allies - Hezbollah and Israel respectively - to find a solution.
Concerns are stronger in the Gulf countries, where Iranian attacks have shaken confidence in the security arrangements that have been in place so far. The Gulf states have emerged among the main losers of the war: they were spectators in decisions that remodeled their security landscape and will suffer the consequences.
Sources from the Gulf say the agreement is already reshaping strategic thinking: corrupts confidence in American protection, consolidates Iran as a lasting regional force and speeds up a turn towards compromise rather than confrontation.
However, Iran's expert, Alex Vatanka, disagrees with this concern. Instead of capitulating, he sees the deal as the least bad result after years of failed pressures.
‘They tried to pay Iran militarily. They didn't make it. The alternative would be disastrous. A wider war could ruin the Gulf for decades," said Vatanka, working with the Middle East Institute in Washington.
The real test lies in the future, the implementation of the agreement, the unresolved nuclear negotiations and the regional reactions it will cause, he said: "It's something big, but it's not the end. It's just the beginning.".
Unstable factor in Israel?
Some analysts view Israel as the main unstable factor. Although they consider it unlikely to derail a process under Trump's auspices, they warn that the danger remains, especially in Lebanon.
"Israel has been isolated after this war, both in the region and in the world," said an Iranian official, who asked not to be named.
"Iran got what it wanted... We did not abandon our friends, such as Hezbollah, instead, we were prepared to go to the point of leaving the negotiating table and returning to war because of them," added another Iranian official.