Bowen: US-Iran Deal Raises Inescapable Question of What the War Was For

Bowen – The agreement reached between President Donald Trump and Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has brought to light the profound consequences of the February 28 attack on Iran. This memorandum of understanding (MOU) outlines the political, military, and economic fallout of what many view as a poorly calculated move. The human toll is evident: thousands of lives have been lost, with a significant number of civilians affected in both Iran and Lebanon. For the United States and its ally Israel, the outcome has been a clear strategic loss. The Iranian regime, once presumed to be vulnerable, has not only endured but emerged stronger, defying the expectation that a combined US-Israel assault would dismantle it.

The Cost of Strategic Miscalculation

The MOU’s terms reveal a shift in power dynamics. By agreeing to lift its counter-blockade of Iranian ports and waive sanctions, the US has effectively conceded ground to Tehran. This allows Iran to resume oil exports, generating billions in revenue and starting the process of returning frozen assets to the country. These concessions, however, have fueled frustration among America’s Iran hawks and within Israel, where the government remains wary of any compromise. The agreement also signals a potential end to the war in Lebanon, a condition Israel insists on maintaining, fearing it would limit its operational freedom in the region.

Israel’s insistence on retaining control in Lebanon could deepen the divide between it and the US. The MOU’s language suggests that the war’s focus is shifting, but for Israel, this is a matter of survival. The country’s leadership, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has long prioritized military dominance over diplomacy. Yet the war’s outcome has exposed the limits of this approach. With the Strait of Hormuz reopened, the initial strategic goal—disrupting Iran’s energy exports—has been achieved, but at the cost of a broader diplomatic compromise.

The Price of Reopening the Strait

Before negotiations for a nuclear deal can resume, the US has already committed to significant concessions. These include lifting economic sanctions and allowing Iran to earn billions from oil exports. The MOU’s agreement is framed as a return to the pre-war status quo, where the Strait was open and talks were ongoing. However, critics argue that this is a costly reversal, one that may undermine the US’s leverage in the region.

“The only ‘achievement’ of the ceasefire is the likely reopening of the Strait of Hormuz – which was open before the war started. And we will apparently pay Iran to do so,” remarked Antony Blinken, Joe Biden’s Secretary of State, in a post on X.

The question remains: what was the war for? For Trump, it was a bold attempt to reshape Iran’s policies and assert dominance. But the MOU has turned this into a costly retreat. The attack on Iran was meant to weaken the regime, yet it has instead strengthened its position. This paradox has left analysts questioning the rationale behind the operation, particularly in light of its economic ramifications.

The Strategic Defeat and Its Roots

The US-Israel strategy of regime change was built on a series of assumptions, many of which have proven flawed. The belief that targeting Iran’s leadership would destabilize the country has been challenged by the regime’s resilience. While Israel’s air strikes on the former Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei and his advisors were a tactical move, they inadvertently empowered Tehran’s hardliners. The new leadership, hardened by the attack, seized the opportunity to close the Strait of Hormuz—a move that has had a global impact, disrupting oil flows and triggering economic uncertainty.

Iran’s ability to control this vital chokepoint has demonstrated its strategic adaptability. The closure of the Strait, which accounts for one-fifth of global oil and gas supplies, has forced the US to backtrack on its initial objectives. This maneuver has shown the regime’s capacity to wield economic pressure as a tool of power, a tactic far more effective than its network of allies and proxies in the region. The Assad regime in Syria, which collapsed by late 2024, is a rare exception to this resilience.

The Shadow of the Hamas Invasion

Netanyahu’s political fortunes have been further strained by the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. This event, which exposed vulnerabilities in the country’s intelligence and military capabilities, has led to a reckoning for the prime minister. His hardline policies, which prioritized military readiness over diplomatic engagement, were intended to bolster his image as Israel’s security guardian. But the war in Iran has cast doubt on that reputation, with the Iranian attack serving as a stark reminder of the regime’s ability to challenge Western dominance.

The MOU’s success in reopening the Strait has highlighted the regime’s tactical brilliance. While the US and Israel achieved their immediate goal, the long-term implications are more complex. The closure of the Strait was a swift and devastating blow, but the MOU has now restored stability to the region. This has allowed Iran to reassert its influence, even as it faces internal challenges to its leadership. The axis of resistance, though weakened, still holds together, with Iran’s allies in Lebanon and Syria playing a critical role.

Despite these setbacks, the war has not been entirely detrimental to Iran. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz forced the US to acknowledge the regime’s strategic importance, leading to a pragmatic agreement. The price of this compromise—economic concessions and a softened stance on sanctions—has been steep, but it has also secured Iran’s position on the global stage. The true cost of the war, however, lies in the questions it raises about the US’s foreign policy and Israel’s military approach. As the world watches the aftermath, the debate over the war’s purpose continues to shape the political landscape for both nations.

With the MOU in place, the path forward remains uncertain. The agreement may serve as a temporary solution, but it also underscores the limitations of military action in achieving lasting peace. The Iranian attack on February 28 was a catalyst for this realignment, proving that strategic pressure can be more powerful than direct confrontation. As negotiations for a nuclear deal resume, the challenge for the US and Iran will be to translate this fragile agreement into a sustainable partnership. The road ahead is fraught with complexities, but the fact that the Strait of Hormuz is now open again signals a pivotal shift in the region’s power dynamics.