This opinion article by Amin Saikal argues that the reported understanding reached between the United States and Iran to end the conflict that began in February 2026 represents a strategic setback for both Washington and Israel rather than a victory.

According to the author, US President Donald Trump, encouraged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, entered the conflict with ambitious goals: weakening or toppling Iran’s government, curbing its nuclear and missile capabilities, and reducing its regional influence.

However, despite suffering significant economic damage, infrastructure losses and civilian casualties, Iran's political system remained intact and continued to resist military and economic pressure.

The article notes that while both sides appear to have agreed on reopening maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and continuing negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme, major disagreements remain regarding sanctions relief, frozen Iranian assets, reconstruction assistance and nuclear enrichment rights.Different accounts from Iranian and American sources suggest that the final details of the agreement are still disputed.

Saikal contends that the war ultimately increased Iran’s leverage, particularly through its influence over the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for global energy supplies.Rising economic costs, international criticism and domestic opposition reportedly pressured the Trump administration to seek a diplomatic exit.

The author also suggests that the outcome is disappointing for Netanyahu, whose broader objective of fundamentally weakening Iran appears unfulfilled.

The article concludes that while a final agreement could potentially improve US-Iran relations and contribute to regional stability, any ceasefire remains fragile.

It questions the purpose of a conflict that, in the author's view, failed to achieve its stated objectives and generated significant regional instability.