London: One of the chief failures in Donald Trump’s peace deal with Iran is the US president’s inability to achieve a goal he spoke about when he began the war on February 28.
“I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump told the Iranian people that night. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
Trump clearly wanted regime change. He did not get it. He has settled for an outcome that leaves the Iranian regime in place to repress its people and threaten the region.
There will be other dangers in the peace terms, but all are linked to this core weakness. Trump said he went to war because Iran would not negotiate. Now he claims peace based on a negotiation with a regime he cannot defeat or control. It is a perilous peace.
The ceasefire is welcome despite the risks, of course. But there are at least five dangers to a lasting deal.
The first is the outcome in the Strait of Hormuz, where Trump says oil will flow freely. The Iranian threat to shipping is supposed to end on Friday when a peace agreement is signed in Switzerland. The American blockade of Iranian ports will also be lifted, along with other sanctions. Trump said the strait would be “toll-free” permanently.
As recently as two weeks ago, however, Iran was reportedly seeking an arrangement with Oman to apply tolls on the shipping lanes. The Iranians will claim to warrant compensation for the strikes on their soil. They have proven they can wield immense power by closing the strait, and they will be tempted to use that power again. And the mere threat will force a response from the world.
On this point alone, the peace terms are a defeat for Trump and a reckoning for America.
The second is that the deal does not bind Israel. The key objective for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 28 was to demolish the regime in Tehran, or at least weaken it to the point that it could not endanger Israel. But Iran appears to emerge with no constraints on its missile and drone programs. This is the debate that will shape the elections due to be held in Israel by the end of October.
The early reaction shows that hardliners such as Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir will not accept these terms. Gvir says Israel must strike Beirut if Hezbollah fires rockets at Israel – a potential deal-breaker for Tehran. This is not a niche view. Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Monday morning (about 5pm AEST) that Israeli forces would remain in the “security zones” of Lebanon, Gaza and Syria – and that there would be “no time limit” on their presence.
“We oppose an IDF withdrawal from Lebanon, despite all the existing pressures and those that will still come,” Katz said in a statement.
The third danger is the reaction from Hezbollah, the militia that began firing on Israel on March 2 to show its support for Iran. Considered a terrorist group by Australia and others, Hezbollah has continued to fire on Israel even when the Israel Defence Forces respond with airstrikes on Beirut, killing civilians. The cycle of attack and retaliation gives Hezbollah inordinate power, because it knows that a decision to fire rockets at an Israeli community can threaten the broader peace deal. Israel has shown it will not accept a Hezbollah presence that leaves its citizens under threat.
The fourth factor is the uncertainty over the terms of the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, including the expectation in Tehran that Trump will release frozen assets worth $US12 billion ($17 billion). Because the details are yet to be released, and will take at least 60 days of negotiation, there is a long period ahead when the deal could fall apart.
Crucially, the nuclear agreement requires a vote by Congress. Will it be worth supporting, or will it be seen as an American retreat when compared with the 2015 nuclear agreement overseen by former president Barack Obama that Trump tore up?
The key figure giving voice to doubt is not a Trump critic, but an ally. “I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming,” Republican senator Lindsey Graham said.
The fifth danger is the future of the Iranian regime. The days leading up to the peace deal saw conflicting signals from key figures within the government, which has been decimated by the targeted killings of its leaders. When Israel struck Beirut on Sunday, several senior Iranians issued statements casting doubt on a deal. Their objections are unlikely to end.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian took to social media to rebuke those who were claiming it was “treason or betrayal” to negotiate the peace. While the regime is intact, it is volatile. Unrest within the government can threaten the peace.
Trump will seek to rewrite history and frame this deal as a victory.
“As far as regime change, I never cared about regime change,” he told The Wall Street Journal on Sunday.
But he cannot erase the claims he made on February 28. The peace is fragile because he did not achieve what he sought.
Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.
David Crowe is Europe correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.Connect via X or email.
