Atlantic: Iran Wins Big in US Peace Deal

By Staff, Agencies

The agreement reached between the US and Iran on Sunday is more akin to capitulation than what the US President Donald Trump claims to be a diplomatic success in the war on Tehran, Tom Nichols wrote for The Atlantic.

He said that the White House claimed the deal to be part of a grand effort towards restricting Tehran's hard and soft power, forcing it to agree to Washington's demands, adding that those opposed to the Trump Administration's approach see the agreement as falling short of the objectives repeatedly outlined by US officials throughout the confrontation.

However, Nichols stated, the deal proved that Iran's core institutions remain intact despite the months of military and economic pressure.

He further argued that the outcome shows the limits of military force in achieving broader political goals when confronting a state with entrenched institutions and extensive regional alliances.

Iran is expected to remain a central regional actor while discussions continue regarding sanctions relief, frozen assets, maritime security, and future nuclear-related arrangements.

Nichols writes that while the full details of the agreement have yet to be officially confirmed, the announcement has already triggered intense debate among analysts and political observers over whether Washington achieved its stated objectives and what the outcome means for the balance of power across West Asia.

The Atlantic analysis argued that despite sustaining damage, Iran has maintained its political system, regional influence, and missile and drone capabilities, suggesting its main goal was preserving state institutions and deterrence.

It added that supporters see the outcome as a failure of attempts at forced political change. The piece also highlights ongoing debate over the Strait of Hormuz, noting that its security ultimately depends on regional states despite US emphasis on freedom of navigation.

The Atlantic article noted that the reported US–Iran deal has raised concerns among US allies, including in "Israel", where officials had closely aligned with Washington’s pressure campaign against Iran, suggesting diverging priorities over the war’s scope and endgame.

It added that the agreement could reshape regional dynamics, including Lebanon and other fronts involving resistance movements, especially if it leads to sanctions relief and broader diplomacy.

Moreover, questions also remain over Iran’s civilian nuclear program and future monitoring, with Nichols noting that outcomes will depend on verification and future negotiations despite US claims of damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

The piece further highlighted uncertainty over sanctions relief and frozen assets, concluding that the deal appears to mark not an end but the start of a new phase in a long-running regional confrontation.