Iran is the winner of the war with the US
In the long arc of great-power rivalry, the United States and Iran have arrived at a fragile threshold — a near-final agreement that both nations are already interpreting as their own triumph. Brokered through Pakistani mediation and announced in mid-June, the proposed memorandum would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, lift sanctions, and defer the deepest question — Iran's nuclear future — to a later reckoning. History suggests that peace declared too loudly before it is secured is often the most precarious kind.
- A war that had escalated into drone strikes and military exchanges appeared to lurch toward a ceasefire within a single news cycle, catching global markets off guard.
- Both Washington and Tehran claimed victory in the same agreement — a contradiction that exposed how much of the deal's meaning remains unresolved and contested.
- The Strait of Hormuz, closed since February, sits at the centre of the deal, but Iran's foreign minister warned that 'our sword will always hang over' it, signalling leverage retained rather than surrendered.
- Israel, which fought alongside the US, is excluded from the negotiations entirely — and its defence minister has already rejected the withdrawal terms Iran says the deal requires.
- Oil prices fell sharply and global stocks rose on the news, reflecting how much the world economy had been held hostage to a conflict neither side can fully afford to continue.
- The signing ceremony is expected within days, but the gap between what each side says the text contains suggests the hardest negotiations may not yet have begun.
On a Friday in mid-June, diplomacy suddenly surfaced from the shadows. Donald Trump shared a post from Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declaring that peace "has never been closer," and within hours a senior US official confirmed both sides had agreed on a text. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who had led mediation efforts, added his own note of momentum. After months of drone strikes and military exchanges, the war between the United States and Iran appeared to be approaching an end.
The proposed memorandum centred on the Strait of Hormuz — closed since US and Israeli attacks in February — which would reopen under the agreement. The American blockade on Iranian ports would be lifted, frozen Iranian assets released, and sanctions on oil exports waived. In return, negotiations over Iran's nuclear program would begin during a 60-day window. A US official called those prospects 'a very, very good place.'
But the two sides were already telling different stories about what they had agreed to. Araghchi declared Iran the winner of the war and insisted Tehran and Oman would retain control of strait traffic. On the nuclear question, the gap was wider still: the US described a path toward dismantling Iran's program entirely, while Araghchi said Iran would only accept diluting — not destroying — its enriched uranium stockpile. Leaked terms suggested Iran had also won discussion of war reparations and the removal of US demands to limit its missile program, claims the White House denied.
Israel, which had fought alongside the US, was absent from the table and would not be bound by the agreement. Its defence minister rejected the withdrawal terms Iran said the deal required, and a senior Israeli official affirmed the country's freedom to act against threats in areas it controls. The agreement, in other words, did not reach the party with the most to lose from its terms.
Markets responded immediately — Brent crude fell more than three percent to a two-month low, and global stocks rose. For the White House, the political logic was plain: the war had driven up fuel prices and eroded Trump's approval ratings ahead of November midterms. Yet many Republicans would find it difficult to support a deal that appeared, on its face, to favour Tehran.
A signing ceremony — likely involving Vice President JD Vance and Iran's parliament speaker, possibly held remotely in Geneva — was expected within days. But between announcement and ceremony lay a chasm of unanswered questions: whether the strait would truly reopen, whether the money would actually flow, whether nuclear talks would lead anywhere, and whether Israel would accept an agreement written without it. The war had not ended. It had paused, waiting to see whether a text both sides claimed to have agreed upon could survive the weight of what neither side had yet conceded.
On a Friday in mid-June, the machinery of diplomacy suddenly shifted into view. Donald Trump shared a post from Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declaring that a peace agreement "has never been closer." Within hours, a senior US administration official confirmed what had been whispered in back channels for weeks: both sides had agreed on a text, and Washington expected to sign an initial deal within days. The war between the US and Iran, which had escalated sharply just days earlier with drone strikes and military exchanges, appeared to be moving toward an end.
Araghchi told Iranian state television that his country had emerged from the conflict as the victor. "Iran is the winner of the war with the US," he said, a declaration that reflected Tehran's reading of what the tentative agreement contained. Pakistan's Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who had led mediation efforts, echoed the sentiment of momentum. "Peace has never been this close as it is now," he posted, signaling that the framework both sides had been negotiating was finally taking shape.
The proposed memorandum of understanding centered on practical matters that had become flashpoints in the conflict. The Strait of Hormuz, which Iran had closed after US and Israeli attacks in February, would reopen. The American blockade on Iranian ports would be lifted. In return, the US would begin releasing billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets and waive sanctions on oil exports. Critically, negotiations over Iran's nuclear program—the stated justification for the war's outbreak—would happen later, during a 60-day window. A US official said the agreement put those talks "in a very, very good place."
But the details revealed sharp disagreements about what victory actually meant. Araghchi insisted that Iran, alongside Oman, would retain control of traffic through the strait. "Our sword will always hang over the Strait of Hormuz," he said, a phrase that captured Tehran's determination to maintain leverage. On the nuclear question, the gap was even wider. The US official stated that the agreement would ultimately lead to the dismantling of Iran's nuclear program, with its stockpile of highly enriched uranium destroyed and removed, backed by long-term inspections. Araghchi countered that Iran wanted to keep the uranium in diluted form. "For Tehran, the only preferred solution for its highly enriched uranium stockpile is down-blending the material," he said. Sources indicated Iran had not accepted dismantling its program at all.
The leaked terms suggested Tehran had extracted significant concessions. The deal appeared to include discussion of war reparations for Iran and dropped longstanding US demands to limit Iran's missile program. Trump dismissed these reports as inaccurate, and a US official pushed back hard. "None of their money released until they perform," the official said. "This is a performance-based deal." The contradiction between what each side claimed the agreement contained hinted at the fragility of what had been achieved.
Israel, which had launched the war alongside the US, was not part of the negotiations and would not be party to the agreement. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said so explicitly. This created another fault line: Araghchi said the deal would end the war in Lebanon, which would require Israel's withdrawal from occupied areas. Israel's defence minister flatly rejected that premise, saying the country would not withdraw. A senior Israeli official added that Israel expected to retain freedom to act against threats in areas under its control. The agreement, in other words, did not bind the party that had fought the hardest.
The news moved markets. Global stocks rose and oil prices fell sharply—Brent crude dropped more than 3 percent to its lowest level in nearly two months. For the White House, the political calculation was clear. The war had become a liability, driving up fuel prices and eroding Trump's approval ratings. Republicans worried it could cost them control of Congress in the November midterm elections. Yet many in the party would struggle to endorse a deal that looked, on its face, far more favorable to Iran than to American interests.
The signing was expected within days. Vice President JD Vance and Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, were likely to sign in Geneva or another European venue, possibly remotely. But between the announcement and the ceremony lay a chasm of unresolved questions: whether Iran would truly open the strait, whether the US would actually release the money, whether the nuclear negotiations would lead anywhere, and whether Israel would accept an agreement that excluded it. The war had not ended. It had simply paused, waiting to see if the text both sides claimed to have agreed upon could survive contact with reality.
Notable Quotes
Iran is the winner of the war with the US— Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, on state television
None of their money released until they perform. Strait of Hormuz will be open. No Iran funding of terrorist groups. This is a performance-based deal.— Senior US administration official
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that Israel isn't part of this deal, given that they started the war alongside the US?
Because Israel has its own security calculus that doesn't align with Washington's. Netanyahu rejected the agreement outright. If Iran opens the strait and gets sanctions lifted, but Israel keeps fighting in Lebanon, the whole thing could unravel.
So the deal could collapse before it's even signed?
It could. The US is saying this is performance-based—money only flows if Iran performs. But Iran is claiming victory and saying it won't dismantle its nuclear program. Those two stories don't fit together.
What does Araghchi mean when he says Iran is the winner?
He's reading the terms as heavily favoring Tehran. Billions in frozen assets released, oil sanctions lifted, control of the strait retained, no real limits on missiles. From Tehran's perspective, they got what they wanted.
And from Washington's perspective?
The official line is that this is a win because it opens the strait and puts nuclear talks on a path toward dismantling the program. But Trump's own party is skeptical. They see a deal that gives Iran money and leverage without clear guarantees.
Why did this suddenly become possible after the war escalated?
Sometimes escalation clarifies what both sides actually want. The drone strikes and military exchanges last week may have convinced both that the costs of continuing were too high. Pakistan's mediation helped too—they had credibility with both sides.
What happens if Iran takes the money and doesn't open the strait?
That's the bet the US is making. They're calling it performance-based, meaning no money until Iran acts. But enforcing that requires trust, and there's very little of that in this relationship.