What Trump presents as a diplomatic breakthrough is more like a calculated surrender disguised as de-escalation. Tehran hasn’t been pressured into giving anything up; instead, they’ve walked away with quick wins, postponed any tough promises, and pushed Washington to agree to terms that mostly favor Iran, leaving the U.S. and Israel to deal with the fallout.
Ricardo Martins
Instead of playing defense, Iran set up the agreement so that they’d get sanctions relief, access to frozen money, oil export waivers, and control over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, all before any of the toughest parts of the nuclear talks even begin. Political scientist Robert Pape calls this “power maximization”: using negotiations not to find middle ground but to pile up more advantages over time.
The US and Israel have not yet absorbed the fact that the war has already altered the regional hierarchy
Trump, constrained by domestic politics, the approaching midterms, divisions within his own administration, and a desire to secure a diplomatic success, found himself bargaining from a position of increasing urgency. Tehran, by contrast, could afford patience, knowing that every passing week increased its bargaining power while reducing Washington’s room for maneuver.
However, the final bargaining chip was Israel’s bombing of Beirut against Trump’s advice and the preeminent Iranian retaliation (bombing) on Israel. To avoid this last Sunday evening, the day of his birthday, Trump conceded a lot to Iran and closed the deal as his retaliation to Netanyahu, without talking to him.
In Search of a Good Narrative
The central argument is unmistakable: Trump has not secured the grand objectives he set out to achieve, but has instead accepted a framework that leaves Iran stronger, gives Israel no durable strategic gain, and makes it difficult for the White House to recast a retreat as a triumph. The United States did not force Iran into submission; rather, Iran forced Washington into a bargain it could no longer safely refuse, as Trump is in a hurry to finish the war, regardless of the outcomes, just a good narrative.
The result is a memorandum that postpones the hardest questions, such as the enriched uranium and Iran’s capacity to enrich it in the future, while rewarding Tehran immediately, politically and materially.
Iran basically scored an asymmetrical deal in its favor. There’s a step-by-step plan: fighting stops in several places, including Lebanon, the naval blockade ends, and the toughest issues are postponed for another 60 days of talks. Meanwhile, Iran gets a part of its frozen money right away, waivers to sell oil, gas, and petrochemicals, and a way to get even more funds down the line—plus a possible reconstruction package that could be much bigger. Most importantly, the Strait of Hormuz isn’t just reopening; it’s now under Iran’s rules, making it possible for Tehran to charge administrative shipping fees and control. That’s not surrender. That’s turning leverage into a permanent advantage.
The way the deal was forged matters just as much as the text itself. According to Pepe Escobar, the breakthrough was engineered through Pakistan, with Qatar also playing a quiet but significant brokerage role, while China provided the wider strategic framework. This was not a lone American-Iranian epiphany but a multipolar process in which Tehran worked through intermediaries, set deadlines, and made clear that continued Israeli strikes on Lebanon would blow up the entire arrangement. The critical turning point came when Israel’s attack on Beirut threatened to derail Trump’s own deal, prompting a furious White House response and, ultimately, new concessions. In other words, Netanyahu’s escalation put Trump in a difficult position; in turn, Trump put Netanyahu in a still more difficult position. It turned out to be a war between partners.
The Geopolitical Meaning: Will Israel Accept?
Robert Pape puts it simply: this deal is all about power. Iran isn’t just getting relief; it is using the talks to gain more influence. The money Iran receives is immediate and flexible, a real political slap in the face for Trump. And as the 60-day deadline approaches, Washington’s options shrink, while Iran’s power and influence in the region keep growing. Pape says the deal works like a one-way street: every week, Iran gets stronger, and if things fall apart later, the blame won’t land on Tehran but on Washington or Israel.
This is precisely why the Israeli angle is so explosive. Former British diplomat and former MI6 officer Alister Crooke explains that Trump has prioritized his own deal and domestic political needs over Israel’s preferences, even as Israel insists it cannot be constrained in its freedom of military action. Netanyahu, meanwhile, is depicted as politically trapped: his polling has collapsed, he needs the Lebanese war to continue surviving politically, and he cannot afford to look as though he is obeying Trump’s orders. The agreement, therefore, contains its own sabotage clause. If Israel keeps attacking Lebanon, Trump’s framework becomes untenable; if Trump tries to restrain Israel, he risks a rupture with the very ally he claims to have protected. There are talks that Mossad might use new Epstein revelations to constrain Trump or make him stop.
That is why the larger geopolitical meaning is so strong. I would add that the US and Israel have not yet absorbed the fact that the war has already altered the regional hierarchy. Washington failed to force regime change in Iran, failed to secure control over enriched uranium, failed to neutralize Iran’s missile capacity, and failed to convert military escalation into strategic obedience. Iran, by contrast, has moved from being the object of coercion to the actor setting conditions. The deal may be fragile, temporary, and vulnerable to rapid collapse, but even as a ceasefire, it marks a profound shift: Iran is no longer merely surviving pressure; it is weaponizing the negotiation itself. For Trump and Netanyahu, that is not victory. It is the price of defeat. The dream of the Greater Israel is more distant.
In conclusion, Iran managed to impose its agenda on Donald Trump, a fact that the Europeans do not, and they don’t even dare. This is a great geopolitical lesson.
Iran wins everything! All their demands were met. “The winner takes it all.” Sorry for bringing up the old ABBA in this discussion, but it was unavoidable not to think of this kitsch song when Iran got everything, and Trump is licking the wounds, and Netanyahu, like a mad dog, is just thinking about how to sabotage Trump’s agreement; even an Epstein 2.0 could come out.
Ricardo Martins – Doctor of Sociology, specialist in European and international politics as well as geopolitics
No comments:
Post a Comment