US President Donald Trump speaks about research into mental health treatments in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, April 18, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Nathan Howard

On Sunday, President Donald Trump announced a framework agreement with Iran to end the 15-week conflict, calling it a “Peace Deal.”

In reality, this is not a final peace deal, but a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that will establish a 60-day ceasefire and lay the groundwork for negotiations on nuclear, sanctions, and missile issues. The official signing will take place on June 19 in Switzerland, mediated by Pakistan.

The agreement represents a tactical pause rather than a strategic resolution, and its implications for the Middle East are far more profound than Trump’s celebratory rhetoric suggests.

If accurate, this marks a dramatic shift in the Middle East’s strategic balance. Iran stood up to the world’s strongest power and emerged with an agreement enhancing its regional influence across the Persian Gulf.

This sends a dangerous message to the region and the global order. Gulf states, clear American allies, now understand that Iranian bullying ultimately pays off. They are paying the price in cash through extortion, threats, and only partial American protection. They have also internalized another lesson: in the Middle East, there is only one country capable of effectively confronting Iran — Israel.

The agreement rests on two principles: the Strait of Hormuz must reopen quickly to free shipping, and Iran will commit not to pursue nuclear weapons, subject to negotiations within 60 days. Beyond that, there is no dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, no elimination of its ballistic missile project, and no cessation of arming Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shiite militias.

In return, Iran gains sanctions relief to sell oil, access to $24–$25 billion of frozen assets, and time to rebuild its military, all according only to Iranian sources. This asymmetry in reporting creates dangerous uncertainty about the deal’s actual terms and enforcement mechanisms.

Iran’s people, who paid 30,000 dead, were promised “help on the way.” Instead, they received a stronger, more brutal regime. As Trump noted, the solution lies in their hands. The Iranian regime has weaponized this narrative, presenting the agreement as a victory against American imperialism while selling the same weapons that killed their citizens to proxy forces across the region.

Beijing has drawn a clear lesson from the Iran episode: the United States does not necessarily have to be defeated on the battlefield. It can be pressured, and in some cases strategically outmaneuvered, through economic leverage. In Iran’s case, the leverage was oil. In China’s case, it will be critical minerals, rare earths, and Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. Beijing understands that Washington often prioritizes short-term diplomatic achievements over long-term strategic consistency, creating opportunities for China to exploit American vulnerabilities and policy contradictions to its advantage.

Europeans and Japanese are rushing to align with the agreement. Iranian missiles can now reach the outskirts of Paris, yet Europe — even after NATO countries were attacked by Tehran’s bully and responded weakly — continues to believe that money and economic concessions will protect it from Iranian terror. This approach failed against the PLO and will not work against Iran. Protection payments do not buy deterrence. Europeans prioritizing trade and cheap oil endanger their own security and the stability of the continent.

Trump is leaving the door open to a “new pirate war”– a war of the straits. While the agreement speaks of free shipping, Iran plans to charge fees for services in the Strait of Hormuz, and the US allows this. Any actor with missiles — Iran, the Houthis, Shiite militias, and potentially China, Turkey, or Russia — can rewrite the rules of international maritime trade.

What was once free navigation is turning into extortion, threats, and “tolls.” This represents a fundamental shift in the global maritime order, replacing universal principles of freedom of navigation with transactional arrangements that reward aggression.

The United States itself will pay more in the bottom line: higher insurance premiums, increased military escorts, elevated logistical costs, and disruptions to global supply chains. A short-term diplomatic victory may prove to be a long-term strategic error.

The situation in Lebanon is particularly complicated. On one hand, the US is working to dismantle Hezbollah; on the other, the agreement grants it a significant lifeline through Iranian rehabilitation. It is an inconsistent and unclear solution. The deal projects American weakness that encourages Iran’s proxies to recover and strengthen. As the agreement with Hamas followed Israel’s strike in Qatar, the strike in Dahiyeh led Trump to accept a deal that calms the arena in the short term but ensures continued bloodshed in the long term. Neither the Hamas problem nor the Iranian one has been solved. Israel will likely have to clean up the mess alone.

Israel is not a party to this agreement and fully understands its implications. The lessons of October 7 leave little room for illusions. The Shiite axis has been weakened but not defeated. If President Trump succeeds in stabilizing the region for years to come, that would be welcome. The real test, however, is what Iran does with the time it has gained. Tehran has historically viewed ceasefires as opportunities to rearm, reorganize, and prepare for the next confrontation. If it uses the coming months to rebuild its missile arsenal, advance its nuclear ambitions, or strengthen its proxy network, Israel will act again — alone if necessary.

This is not the beginning of a new peace in the Middle East. It is another pause in a long and exhausting war. The bottom line is clear: this framework agreement is a tactical pause, not a strategic resolution. Iranian intentions remain unchanged. The conflict has been paused, not resolved, and the challenge posed by Iran remains unfinished.

Sagiv Steinberg is the CEO of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA), a leading Israeli research institute. He has an extensive background in senior leadership positions across the Israeli and global media landscape.