An unsustainable war: Trump's concessions to Iran

WashingtonDonald Trump initiated the war against Iran on February 28 with maximalist objectives: to eliminate the nuclear and ballistic missile program, overthrow the ayatollah regime, and end Tehran's support for regional military groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas. The 14-point agreement signed Wednesday night does not address any of these issues and only defers some to future negotiations. Iran commits not to manufacture any nuclear bomb (it has always stated that its program had strictly peaceful purposes), there is no mention of missiles, and it guarantees the territorial integrity of Lebanon, partially occupied by Israel in its fight against Tehran's allied militia. It does include how the Strait of Hormuz should be opened (which was already open before the joint attack by the United States and Israel); a plan to rebuild Iran with 300 billion dollars, and the lifting of all sanctions against Tehran in exchange for it not acquiring or developing nuclear weapons.

former President Barack Obama reached in 2015 with Iran,The first reactions have described the agreement as too broad, vague, and provisional, especially considering the expectations with which it had been announced, and have pointed out that it was only created to try to get the talks back on track. The contrast with the agreement that former President Barack Obama reached in 2015 with Iran, which Donald Trump has heavily criticized—and from which he withdrew in 2018, during his first term—. That agreement, experts note, was extremely detailed, also involved the European Union, Russia, and China, and placed Iran's nuclear program under strict international supervision, with guarantees that it would not have a military use.

In this case, government sources have clarified that the text is deliberately very generic, to allow Iran to sell it as a victory and allow them to continue negotiating. A half-victory, they argue, is better than none, and offering some progress buys time for the parties to move forward in a context with less pressure thanks to the reopening of the strait.

The Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has positioned himself along these lines, who, despite usually being very critical of the Trump administration, has called the pact a "turning point." After all, Trump's main objective now was to curb the economic and political chaos that the war was causing, and which is seriously harming his party's prospects in the November congressional elections.

Another element that has generated controversy has been Iran's reconstruction fund, an issue that was not initially part of the negotiation. This part of the agreement is noteworthy after Trump's criticism of Obama's concessions, which included the unblocking of about a hundred billion in Iranian assets held in foreign banks in exchange for Iran limiting its nuclear program. On this occasion, the pact also establishes that the United States will grant the licenses, exemptions, and permits necessary for financial transactions related to the fund.

Israel and Lebanon

In the signed document, the United States and Iran declare the end of military operations on all fronts, "including Lebanon," and "commit to not initiating any war or military operation" between them, as well as to "guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon." Neither Israel nor Hezbollah, the two parties that have been fighting each other in Lebanon, are part of the agreement.

For many experts, this will be one of the problems of the pact. Israel has already made it clear that it does not feel obligated to anything in these negotiations and that stopping the attacks would harm its national security, but, according to the agreement, Iran can demand that Trump pressure Netanyahu if he attacks Lebanon again. This very Wednesday, sources from the Israeli government told the media that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had asked to see the agreement, but that they had not shown it to him.

"The reaction in Lebanon to the agreement is one of confusion and uncertainty. There is no specific mention of a withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanese territory," explains Nicholas Blanford, a researcher for the Middle East programs at the Atlantic Council. "And there are indications that Hezbollah, which vehemently opposes the Lebanese government's negotiations with Israel, could try to overthrow the government and replace it with one that would withdraw the disarmament project," he warns.

"Netanyahu faces enormous internal criticism for the memorandum of understanding, and will have to decide in the four-month period before the elections whether to ignore Trump and increase tensions in Lebanon, with all that this implies, or to comply with the interests of the United States and suffer the possible internal consequences. In the thirty-two years I have been living in Lebanon, I don't think I have ever seen such chaos or more unpredictable consequences," he points out.

The parties are expected to stage the signing of the memorandum of understanding this Friday in Switzerland. Then the 60 days of talks on the Iranian nuclear program will begin, a short deadline for the set objective, but which the parties have agreed to extend if both wish to do so.