By Dr. Abdelaziz Tarekji
Investigative Journalist and Researcher in International Human Rights Violations
.
The recent U.S.–Iran agreement has reshaped the political and security landscape of the Middle East following a period of unprecedented military escalation that raised genuine fears of a large-scale regional war whose consequences could have extended across the globe.
While many international actors welcomed the agreement as a step toward containing the crisis and preventing a slide into a comprehensive confrontation, fundamental questions have emerged regarding the nature of the agreement, its actual limits, and its ability to address the deep-rooted causes of the conflict that has characterized relations between the United States and Iran for more than four decades.
Through this article, we seek to provide an analytical reading of the agreement by reviewing its widely reported provisions, discussing its regional and international implications, and examining the most important questions surrounding the future of the U.S.–Iran conflict and its impact on the security and stability of the Middle East.
.
The Reported Provisions of the U.S.–Iran Agreement
According to information circulated in international media outlets, political reports, and unofficial leaks, the agreement includes a set of understandings aimed at halting military escalation and creating conditions conducive to the resumption of political and diplomatic engagement between the two parties.
Among the most frequently reported provisions are the cessation of direct military operations and the prevention of actions that could expand the scope of the conflict; ensuring the security of international navigation in the Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz; returning to negotiations concerning Iran’s nuclear program; exploring the possibility of gradually easing certain economic sanctions in exchange for specific Iranian commitments; refraining from targeting civilian facilities and critical infrastructure; and establishing political and security communication channels to prevent unintended confrontations.
Despite the significance of these provisions, the agreement does not appear to have conclusively addressed several of the most sensitive issues, particularly the future of Iran’s nuclear program, its missile capabilities, the role of Tehran’s regional allies, and the nature of relations between Iran and Israel. This raises important questions regarding the agreement’s ability to endure over the long term.
.
Does the Agreement Represent an End to the Conflict or Merely Crisis Management?
An initial assessment suggests that the agreement succeeded in halting a dangerous phase of military escalation; however, it has not yet eliminated the structural causes of the conflict.
The fundamental issues that fueled tensions remain unresolved, and the deep mutual distrust between the two sides has not disappeared. Rather, it has been temporarily contained within a political framework designed to prevent escalation rather than to achieve a definitive settlement of longstanding disagreements.
From this perspective, the agreement may be viewed more as a mechanism for managing risks and crises than as a genuine framework for ending the conflict itself.
.
The Question of the Iranian Regime’s Survival
The agreement has renewed debate regarding the nature of American and Israeli attitudes toward the Iranian regime.
Some analysts argue that the continued existence of the Iranian system provides a permanent justification for Western military presence and security alliances in the region, while also contributing to the reshaping of regional political and security alignments.
Others contend that Iran represents a genuine challenge to American and Israeli interests because of its nuclear program, regional influence, and expanding military capabilities, and that claims suggesting a direct benefit from the regime’s survival fail to capture the complexity of the strategic environment.
Nevertheless, past experiences in the region have demonstrated that the collapse or fragmentation of major states can generate widespread instability whose risks may exceed those associated with the continuation of existing political systems. This reality has led many decision-makers to favor policies of containment and management over strategies aimed at comprehensive regime change.
.
Iran’s Commitment to Its Regional Allies
One of the most significant challenges facing any future agreement is Iran’s continued commitment to building and supporting a broad network of regional allies and partners.
Tehran regards this policy as an integral component of its national security architecture and defensive strategy, while other actors argue that these networks have contributed to fueling numerous regional conflicts and deepening instability across the Middle East.
It is therefore unlikely that Iran will completely abandon this approach in the foreseeable future. As a result, one of the principal sources of disagreement between Tehran on one side and Washington and Tel Aviv on the other is expected to remain in place regardless of temporary diplomatic understandings.
.
Israel and the Continuation of the Cycle of Confrontation
Israel, for its part, maintains that its military and security actions are undertaken in response to threats that it considers directed against its national security.
Critics of Israeli policies, however, argue that the state of ongoing conflict has at times evolved into a justification for expanding military operations and prolonging confrontations throughout the region, resulting in greater destruction, increased human suffering, and diminishing prospects for political settlements.
Consequently, the region finds itself caught between an Iranian strategy determined to preserve its influence and regional alliances, and an Israeli perspective that views continued military and security pressure as necessary for safeguarding its strategic interests. Meanwhile, the peoples of the region remain trapped between these competing visions and rival geopolitical agendas.
.
Global Consequences of the Conflict
The repercussions of the U.S.–Iran confrontation have not been confined to the immediate parties involved. Rather, they have extended to the global economy as a whole.
International markets have experienced significant fluctuations in oil and energy prices, while maritime transportation and insurance costs have increased substantially. Global trade routes and supply chains have also been affected, and military expenditures have risen at the expense of development and investment programs in numerous countries.
The crisis has once again demonstrated that the stability of the Middle East is no longer merely a regional concern, but a factor with direct implications for global economic and political security.
.
The Future of the U.S.–Iran Conflict
Several possible scenarios may emerge in the coming years. These range from the successful implementation of the agreement and its evolution into broader understandings, to the continuation of a managed conflict that prevents full-scale war without addressing the underlying causes of the dispute, or even the collapse of the agreement and the return of confrontation in more complex and unpredictable forms.
Given the nature of the existing disagreements, the most likely scenario in the foreseeable future appears to be the continuation of indirect competition and conflict between the two sides within politically and militarily controlled limits, while the possibility of escalation remains present whenever negotiations falter or regional balances of power shift.
.
Iran Between Regional Influence and Alleged Support for Armed Groups
Iran’s regional role remains one of the most controversial issues in the Middle East. The United States, along with several Western and regional governments, has repeatedly accused Tehran of relying on a broad network of allies and armed groups to expand its political and military influence beyond its national borders.
These allegations refer to Iran’s continued political, military, and financial support for a number of armed actors across the region, most notably Hezbollah in Lebanon, various armed factions in Iraq, and the Houthi movement in Yemen, in addition to other alliances and relationships of varying influence throughout different regional arenas.
Critics of Iranian policy argue that these networks have contributed to the complexity of regional crises, prolonged armed conflicts, and weakened the authority of national governments in several Arab countries. They also accuse Iran of maintaining networks and cells linked to, or sympathetic with, its policies in various parts of the world with the aim of expanding its political and security influence beyond its geographical borders.
Tehran, on the other hand, maintains that its relationships with these actors fall within the framework of supporting resistance movements and defending its strategic and security interests against what it perceives as external threats targeting its national security.
Regardless of the competing political interpretations, this issue remains one of the principal obstacles to any comprehensive settlement between Iran and the United States and its allies, and one of the main reasons why many observers remain skeptical about the ability of temporary agreements to produce lasting regional stability.
.
Domestic Conditions in Iran: Security Control and Challenges to Public Freedoms
Alongside the debate surrounding its foreign policies, Iranian authorities continue to face criticism from international human rights organizations concerning the nature of the country’s political and security system and the state of public freedoms.
Numerous human rights reports point to the expansion of the powers granted to security and intelligence institutions and law enforcement agencies, accompanied by strict measures against political opponents, activists, journalists, and protest movements, as well as restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly, and political participation.
Critics of the Iranian system argue that the growing influence of the security establishment over public life has reinforced the state’s surveillance-oriented character and increased feelings of political isolation among segments of society, while reducing meaningful participation in decision-making processes. These dynamics have been reflected in repeated waves of protests witnessed across the country in recent years.
Iranian authorities, however, justify such policies as necessary measures to safeguard national security and preserve state stability against what they describe as foreign interference, security threats, and terrorist activities.
As this debate continues, political reform and the expansion of public freedoms remain among the key issues shaping Iran’s future. They also represent important factors influencing Tehran’s relationship with the international community and its ability to overcome the growing isolation and pressures it faces at both the regional and international levels.
.
Conclusion
The U.S.–Iran agreement demonstrates that the parties involved are fully aware of the dangers that could arise from an open and direct war. Nevertheless, the agreement has yet to address the fundamental roots of the crisis and its deeper causes.
Iran’s nuclear program remains a source of contention, Tehran’s regional policies have not undergone any substantial transformation, and Israeli security concerns remain firmly in place. Consequently, the Middle East continues to exist in a state of fragile equilibrium rather than having entered an era of sustainable peace.
The agreement may have succeeded in silencing the missiles, at least temporarily, but it has not yet silenced the underlying causes that launched them.
Therefore, the central question remains whether the Middle East has genuinely entered a new phase of stability, or whether it is merely standing atop a fragile truce that conceals the elements of another future explosion—one that could prove even broader and more complex than those that preceded it.
Amid these political, strategic, and military calculations, innocent civilians remain the greatest victims of all wars and conflicts.
While states and regional powers compete over influence, interests, and balances of power, millions of civilians continue to pay a devastating price through death, displacement, poverty, insecurity, and the destruction of future generations’ prospects.
For this reason, any genuine and lasting settlement should not be measured solely by its ability to stop military operations or protect political interests. Rather, it should be judged by its capacity to protect human beings, uphold their dignity, and guarantee their fundamental rights to life, security, and peace, for humanity remains the ultimate loser in every war, regardless of the slogans used to justify it.