Great power politics are governed less by principles or slogans than by interests; the personalities of leaders and their political ambitions can also leave clear imprints on them. In the case of the United States today, the state’s core calculations intersect with President Donald Trump’s style: pragmatism, dealmaking, and the pursuit of landmark achievements bearing his name.
At a time when Washington faces unprecedented strategic, economic, and technological challenges, from competition with China to the race in artificial intelligence and advanced technology, the Middle East no longer occupies the position it once did. Rather, it has become an issue that the US administration seeks to manage at the lowest possible cost.
One can read the memorandum of understanding reached between Washington and Tehran from this angle. It is not so much a final agreement as a general framework for negotiation, or a declaration of intent setting out the paths the two sides may later pursue. Yet its significance lies not only in its details, but also in what it indicates: Washington and Tehran now prefer to manage their dispute than bear the cost of open confrontation, especially after Iran managed to preserve its political system and its regional network of influence.
There is no doubt that our region will be among those most affected by the outcome of this memorandum and whether it leads to a comprehensive agreement or remains a mere framework for negotiations. The repercussions will not be confined to the American-Iranian relationship; they will also extend to the future of the US presence in the Middle East and the nature of Washington’s involvement in its crises.
The United States’ focus on settling the issues directly tied to its interests with Iran reinforces the assumption that its strategic priorities now lie outside the region, and that it is seeking to reduce its presence there in a way that leaves the region hostage to the Israeli-Iranian conflict, drawing objections both inside America and among its regional allies, as it represents a retreat from established strategic commitments. The right-wing hawks in the Republican Party closest to Israel have reservations about the memorandum, meaning that it will likely become a political fault line in the coming midterm elections and even in the presidential race.
Israel has not concealed its displeasure with the course of negotiations and the details of the talks, especially since it regards any agreement with Tehran as a strategic concession that threatens its security and regional standing. Although this will not lead to the collapse of the American-Israeli alliance, Israel’s discontent does reflect a decline in Tel Aviv’s ability to impose its vision of Iran on the American president, and may push the relationship between the two sides into a critical stage.
Regionally, political realism requires an approach that starts from the new reality. Rather than awaiting the outcome of negotiations, they should be understood as an indication of a world in which reliance on external guarantees is receding in favor of building self-reliant sources of strength. This requires strengthening Arab cohesion politically and economically, continuing to avoid involvement in any potential American-Israeli-Iranian conflict, and building a joint defense architecture that is better placed to confront emerging threats. It also calls for a reconsideration of the concept of regional security such that it is not based on the assumption that the great powers will intervene, alongside the development of balanced partnerships with Europe, and other global powers, grounded in the reality that the interests of major states may change.
Lebanon remains the weakest link in this equation. The memorandum suggests that Tehran and its allies have been given a dose of oxygen that could translate into the reproduction of the balance of power that governed the country for decades, and reinforcing the influence of the Shiite duo, especially Hezbollah, over the top political decisions. Meanwhile, calls to confine weapons to the hands of the state and restore its full sovereignty are losing momentum, returning Lebanon to a phase in which settlements prevailed over the building of the state and its institutions. This will be reflected in the course of negotiations with Israel by lowering their ceiling: from a search for final solutions to the conflict to merely consolidating a long ceasefire, while ambiguity persists over the fate of the lands Israel occupied during the latest confrontations.
As for Trump’s call for Syria to intervene in Lebanon to curb Hezbollah, it is a riddle that needs someone to unravel it.
The real danger does not stem from the memorandum itself, but in the deeper shifts it reflects in the calculations of great powers. Reducing the outcome to one of Iranian steadfastness may obscure a more important fact concerning the shift in American policy itself. The memorandum does not merely reflect political realism; it also reflects a retreat from the moral considerations on which the West had relied to justify its foreign policies.
The memorandum, and the agreement that may emerge from it, suggest that the Americans are betting on fundamental changes in the behavior of the Iranian regime and in its expansionist regional policies - a wager deemed sufficient to justify offering incentives and investments worth $300 billion. If this wager proves prudent, the region will be transformed in fundamental ways. But if it fails, any agreement would merely reproduce policies whose failure has already been proven, and will pave the way for new rounds of future conflicts.
