Trump-Iran historic peace agreement under Israel’s evil eye

As Trump and his White House aides, the Iranian clergy in Tehran, and mediators from Pakistan added final touches to the agreement to end the war, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made a last-ditch effort to derail the process.

Sensing the peace agreement included an end to military operations in Lebanon, Netanyahu ordered a strike on Beirut’s southern Dahiyeh district. Weary of his wartime partner, Trump pressed ahead with the deal anyway. He needs to exit the conflict he both inherited and escalated.

Both Iran and the US will now formally sign the preliminary peace deal on Friday in Switzerland, while clocks strike thirteen in Tel Aviv.

The two-phase deal aims to end the Middle East war. It will reverse the US blockade of Iranian ports, reopen the Strait of Hormuz for commercial shipping, and immediately halt military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. The signing opens a 60-day window to decide the fate of Iran’s nuclear program and the lifting of economic sanctions.

The circle is complete. Trump now seeks a nuclear deal with Iran.

- Owais Tohid 

For Trump, the path forward remains highly constrained. He has few options other than to pursue peace. The political backdrop in Washington is fraught. He faces midterm elections later this year amid soaring oil and commodity prices, and recent polling indicates a steady erosion of his popularity. For many Americans, the narrative is clear: Netanyahu dragged the US into a war of choice against Iran, not one of necessity.

After Iran attacked US bases in the Gulf, a growing perception across the Arab world holds that the American security umbrella has either failed or become inadequate. Political discussions are increasingly centered on recalibration and realignment of regional power.

Trump is loath to see the oil rich, geostrategically important Gulf states drift into China’s fold, given Beijing’s rising influence in the region. Cracks in the “inseparable bond” between Israel and the US are widening as their interests appear to diverge across the Middle East.

Israeli newspaper Haaretz columnist Joshua Leifer, in his essay “The End of the US-Israel Alliance,” writes that if the Iran war has truly ended, historians may look back on the conflict as the apex of the special relationship. “What follows,” he argues, “will be the fall.”

Netanyahu wants perpetual conflict while Trump wishes to sustain America’s geostrategic influence in the region. The apparent discord, if it persists, is likely to push both the Abraham Accords and Trump’s “Board of Peace” plan for Gaza’s reconstruction down the list of priorities.

Trump’s frustrations with Netanyahu have mounted amid Israel’s insistence on striking Lebanon, even as Washington continues peace negotiations with Tehran. Trump reportedly used expletives in his “angry” telephone calls with Netanyahu.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu faces fraud and corruption charges. If he loses the election in October this year, he could go to prison. His political survival is at stake. He has declared that Israel will keep its troops in Lebanon. “The struggle has not ended,” he said. “I want to make it clear: we will remain in the security zones as long as required in order to defend our country.”

Trump responded with harsh criticism. “Without the US, there would be no Israel. Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did. Now Bibi [Netanyahu] has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon,” Trump said at the G7 summit in France.

Iran, too, has strong reasons to seek a pause. With the loss of key political and military leaders and vast infrastructural destruction, Tehran recognizes that its fragile economy, soaring inflation and rising unemployment cannot sustain unending war.

Iran’s ruling clerics have shrugged off hard-line bluster, opting instead to reconcile with their erstwhile “Great Satan.” Crippled by stringent sanctions, Tehran now seeks to end decades of isolation, unfreeze an estimated $100 billion in assets, and secure relief from economic sanctions.

Trump now boasts that Tehran will never acquire atomic weapons and vows to secure a better deal than the Obama administration did nearly a decade ago. However, the previous UN Security Council endorsed deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the JCPOA, explicitly stated that Iran “under no circumstances will ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons.” Trump tore up that agreement during his first term and reimposed economic sanctions on Iran. A “better deal” may exist only in his rhetoric.

The circle is complete. Trump now seeks a nuclear deal with Iran.

In this devastating conflict, Pakistan has emerged as a critical intermediary, mobilizing diplomatic efforts since the war began.

The regional powers, particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, played a key role, enabling Pakistan to sustain diplomatic pressure and keep both Washington and Tehran away from direct military confrontation. The GCC leadership demonstrated remarkable restraint despite repeated Iranian attacks.

Uniquely positioned with close ties to the Trump administration, the trust of Iranian leaders, and longstanding bonds with Gulf states, Pakistan has become a key mediator.

The synchronization between Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership has been masterful. The country’s Field Marshal, General Asim Munir, is widely regarded as the driving force, leveraging direct access to both US and Iranian leadership to relay messages as a trusted intermediary.

His personal rapport with Trump, who has publicly called him a “great” and “favorite” general, has proven invaluable. Field Marshal Munir visited Iran twice during critical stalemates. During his second trip, he is believed to have convinced Trump that Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei was alive and backing the talks. That assurance likely prompted Trump and Vice President JD Vance, who had previously cast doubt because the new Supreme Leader had never made a public appearance, to acknowledge Khamenei’s survival and consent to the process.

The key proved to be Pakistan’s quiet, discreet diplomacy, which secured the trust of both Washington and Tehran.

Currently, both Iran and Trump are peddling a notion of victory for their respective domestic audiences.

The Iranian clergy claims the deal is a triumph against the enemy, framed as the reward for the country’s resilience against two powerful adversaries, America and Israel. They also point to securing the unfreezing of billions of dollars in frozen accounts before negotiations concluded. Hopes were further raised when Vance said in a CBS interview that Iran could have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund if Tehran upholds its obligations under the deal. The US reportedly will also allow Iran to sell its oil and petrochemical products.

For his part, Trump declares that, unlike the failures of past US presidents, he has secured a “great deal” that will bring “peace and security to the whole region.” Even before formal nuclear negotiations could start, Vance claimed Iran had agreed to turn over its stockpile of enriched uranium, permit routine inspections of its facilities, and refrain from pursuing or purchasing a nuclear weapon.

The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz will come as a relief to the world, especially to the Gulf countries whose economic lifeline depends on this critical oil and energy passage. Global markets are already showing signs of stability and optimism.

However, the road to lasting peace is paved with challenges. For Iranians, it is littered with the land mines of deep-seated mistrust toward America and Israel, fueled by decades of bitter rivalry.

The 60-day timeframe to lock in a complex nuclear deal is overly optimistic. Under Obama, it took 20 months to reach an agreement. While two months may be short for a nuclear deal, it seems a dangerously long time for Israel to refrain from sabotaging the peace process.

Israeli forces continue to strike Lebanon, and Netanyahu refuses to withdraw from Gaza, Syria and Lebanon, betting that Iranian hard-liners and their allies will lose patience first. The clock is now ticking, and every page turned on that 60-day calendar will bring a new trial for the peace deal.

- Owais Tohid has reported extensively on war and conflict in Asia for 30 years and witnessed the rise and fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He has also covered the Palestinian conflict in the Occupied Territories and worked for the BBC World Service, AFP and CS Monitor. X: @OwaisTohid