“Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED.”
The Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s statement this week confirms a cessation of hostilities between Washington and Tehran, to be formalized on June 19 in Geneva. Vice President J.D. Vance is expected to sign the deal alongside Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf—the man with whom he negotiated in Islamabad during the first U.S.–Iran talks at this level since 1979. Intriguingly, both Vance and President Donald Trump on Monday said a deal had already been signed. Military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, will terminate immediately and permanently; the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for the global oil trade, will reopen.
That, at least, is the idea, though the two sides will need to implement the agreement to get Israel’s war in Lebanon ended and the Strait of Hormuz truly open for shipping. Similarly, modalities will have to be found to implement the sanctions relief and unfreezing of Iranian assets reportedly in the agreement. And then comes the even harder part: Once it takes effect, the “memorandum of understanding” will kick off 60 days of discussions on thorny issues related to Iran’s nuclear program—enrichment levels, inspection regimes, and breakout timelines.
Those negotiations will face spoilers on both sides. In Washington, neoconservatives like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and its CEO Mark Dubowitz will oppose any outcome short of total Iranian capitulation. They have spent decades arguing that only maximum pressure, regime change, and war can suffice to address “the Iranian threat.”
In Tehran, hardliners associated with the so-called Steadfast Front, who dream essentially of a North Korean model for Iran, view any compromise as a betrayal of the revolution’s principles. Lacking deep political support, they exert pressure on the negotiators through the media and the hardline-dominated parliament.
Then there is Israel, which still has levers to derail any final agreement by escalating violence in Lebanon, despite Trump’s clear preference for ending the war on all fronts.
Amid the intense activity of all these potential spoilers, the agreement could easily collapse before it reaches its second stage. That is the real danger of the coming months.
Yet the deal already agreed—pending its official public signing in Geneva—has far wider geopolitical ramifications than a transactional ceasefire. That is because it reveals the limits of American power and opens a path to a long-overdue U.S. strategic recalibration in the Middle East.
What did the war actually prove? The U.S. entered this conflict believing that conventional military superiority would quickly compel radical changes in the policies of the Iranian government, if not regime change. That was a costly error. Air campaigns, naval interdictions, and strikes against the IRGC and political leadership did not produce capitulation. They produced Iranian entrenchment. The regime remains in place, more emboldened than ever.
Here is the deeper irony: The threat of war had preserved American leverage, and the waging of war destroyed it. So long as the prospect of the use of force remained ambiguous, Iran had to hedge. Once force was actually applied and failed to produce decisive results, Tehran learned that the United States could not achieve its maximalist objectives militarily. That knowledge permanently shifted the bargaining dynamic.
But this outcome need not be seen as catastrophic. It can instead produce a realistic reassessment of American presence and partnerships in the Middle East.
The coalition that helped end the war diplomatically points the way forward. The Pakistani statement identifies the mediators: apart from Pakistan itself, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Some of these states were more involved than others, but all invested diplomatic capital to wind down a conflict that none of them initiated and all recognized as contrary to their interests. They understood that the U.S.–Iran war had destabilized the entire region, and that a widening of that war would devastate it.
Now contrast them with the states that pushed for escalation: Israel and the United Arab Emirates. Both view Iran as an existential threat. Both prefer that the United States bear the costs of containing it. But from a U.S. perspective, their advocacy was not friendly counsel. It was an attempt to outsource their security dilemmas to American forces. This is not to condemn Jerusalem and Abu Dhabi. It simply notes that their interests and American interests are not aligned on the question of war with Iran. In fact, they are fundamentally incompatible.
The strategic opportunity is now visible. The deal allows the United States to do what it should have done a decade ago: recalibrate its regional posture downward while ensuring that no single power—Iranian, Saudi, Turkish, or Israeli—dominates the Gulf.
The framework is straightforward. If the final deal is reached, it would enable the U.S. to sharply reduce its military footprint in the Gulf. The primary responsibility for regional security would likely shift to an alignment of regional powers: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Pakistan, and Egypt. These states have the economic weight, military capacity, and diplomatic relationships with Tehran to manage the regional frameworks without direct American combat involvement.
This is not abandonment. The United States could become the offshore balancer it has long wanted to be, rather than the regional micromanager and onshore garrison it actually became.
Israel and its supporters in Washington would not like any of these developments. But ultimately, Israel’s long-term security depends less on American military guarantees than on its own deterrent capabilities and its eventual accommodation with its neighbors. The United States has demonstrated that it will not fight a major war to fulfill Israel’s maximalist goals. That fact is now evident to both parties. Israel’s best path forward is therefore to adjust its own force posture and pursue regional normalization on terms that do not require American combat power. And that starts with charting a credible path to a viable Palestinian state. That is a harder path, but a more reliable one.
Finally, the implications for American domestic politics are deep. By signing the deal in Geneva, J.D. Vance could become the visible face of America’s Middle East recalibration toward realism. His signature on June 19 would mark a strategic recognition: The U.S. is overextended, the war exposed that overextension, and now the administration is correcting course. Entering the 2028 election cycle, Vance could plausibly claim to have extracted the U.S. from a costly war that had no realistic path to victory. Given the polling data on Americans’ views of the Iran War, that sounds like a good position for the VP to be in.
Read the full article here
