The recently signed memorandum of understanding between US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pejskian explains the political, military, and economic consequences of the premature decision to attack Iran on February 28. The human cost of this war has been starkly evident. Thousands have died, the majority of whom were civilians in Iran and Lebanon. The United States and its ally Israel have suffered a strategic defeat.
The military action taken by the US, then the world’s superpower, and Israel, the leading Middle Eastern power, aimed at decisively crippling Iran but instead plunged Tehran into a severe crisis.
Iran’s strategy to close the Strait of Hormuz—which handles about one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply—forced Trump to offer some concessions. This move angered Iran’s staunch opponents, a sentiment reflected within the US and Israeli governments. The agreement calls for an end to the ongoing conflict in Lebanon, but it also risks deepening divisions between Israel and Iran and may benefit hardline Iranian factions distancing themselves from the US.
According to the memorandum, to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the US will lift its blockade on Iranian ports, enabling Iran to export oil and earn billions, while also releasing frozen assets abroad to tap into global markets. All these measures are to be implemented prior to the full nuclear agreement.
The agreement’s timeline includes February 27, the day before the planned attack, when the Strait of Hormuz remained open for shipping and negotiators were discussing the nuclear deal.
The core question of what the war was truly fought for remains unresolved and will continue to be debated. This decision could be regarded as the greatest foreign policy mistake of Trump’s administration. It might also signal the possible end of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-term political career. With elections scheduled in Israel for October and in light of the security failures in preventing the brutal Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, voters may critically assess Netanyahu’s leadership role.
