The recent memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran dominated regional and international headlines. Weeks after the hot US-Israeli war against Iran ended, the conflict then entered a de-escalation phase filled with fake news, misleading analyses, and false information from both the Americans and Iranians. This represents a new form of intense conflict whose goal is to reach a rapid agreement, which helps explain the speed and scale of the shifts.
A clear distinction must be made between the memorandum of understanding signed by both parties and the final agreement that will emerge from future negotiations in Switzerland or elsewhere. This memorandum fits the Arabic saying "like a cork on a rib": it is weak and unable to hold the weight of the profound disagreements between the two sides, let alone fully account for the broader geographic region that will be positively and negatively affected by it. The major actors in the region are the Arab Gulf states and Israel, with Pakistan and Türkiye playing important roles on the periphery.
This memorandum is intended to build trust between the United States and Iran. However, it overlooks the importance of building trust among the countries of the region themselves, a priority point clearly emphasized by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah. If the Obama agreement failed, to the countries of the region, it was because it did not resolve the issue of Iran's nuclear program, but instead gave it an opportunity to develop the program further. It also said nothing about interference in other countries' internal affairs: enabling support for political Islamist groups, strengthening terrorist organizations, and establishing sectarian militias.
These issues remain of fundamental importance to all regional states. If the anticipated agreement fails to address them clearly, it is unlikely to fare better than its predecessor.
There are facts and realities that should be remembered and considered more enduring than the kinds of hasty political decisions that have led to the rapid signing of this memorandum. One is that the Arabian Gulf is, in many ways, an Arab lake, and the Strait of Hormuz was named after the Arab Kingdom of Hormuz. It is an Arab Gulf because the peoples and communities living on both its shores are authentically Arab, regardless of the kingdoms that once ruled there or the states that govern it today.
Another reality is that Iran itself is a country of many religions, ethnicities, sects, and schools of thought, all officially recognized and documented in well-known local and international statistics. A third reality is that after the First and Second World Wars, the maps of the Middle East were redrawn; independent states with often artificial borders were created in ways that encouraged ongoing conflicts. Some national groups that had not been known as distinct political entities for centuries established independent states, while other ancient peoples with deep historical roots were denied states of their own.
It is unrealistic and politically naïve to believe that international maritime law can be abolished under any pretext, especially in a region whose states are wealthy, powerful, and make independent decisions. Such states cannot be subjected to cheap forms of coercion when they are at the height of their civilizational development and pursuing an ambitious future. States, like individuals, have interests, dignity, and self-respect.
The Obama agreement failed because it completely ignored the security concerns and threats facing regional states. If the final agreement does not fully account for these concerns and threats, it is unlikely to survive much longer than the previous agreement. States whose interests are not directly, clearly, and explicitly considered cannot be expected to support such an arrangement.
History shows that international agreements can dramatically alter regional and global balances of power. The agreements that ended World War I contributed to the conditions that led to World War II, while the post-war international order helped create the Cold War. Any attempt to establish a new international order that marginalizes realism and rationality, embracing a logic of raw power, will have an unpredictable future and will therefore be difficult to support, let alone endorse.
There is much more that could be said about the provisions of this memorandum of understanding. Some aspects deserve scrutiny, including an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and an analysis of what lies between the lines. However, such discussion is premature at this stage.
Finally, one can only hope for the success of this memorandum and of the final agreement that may emerge from it, and reject war and bloody conflict. However bad agreements can create even worse situations, as President Trump himself used to say about Obama's agreement.
