A Signature is Not a Settlement: Trump’s Fragile Iran Pause

Image: StreetOnCamara_Comeback / shutterstock.com

The first round of negotiations between the United States and Iran on a final deal to end the war eventually took place in Switzerland over the weekend, after an earlier postponement. In a joint statement early Monday, June 22, Qatar and Pakistan said the parties had agreed to “a roadmap towards reaching a final deal within 60 days.” The White House attributed the delay to a technical matter. This so-called logistical delay, however, is better understood as an early warning sign.

The memorandum of understanding that Washington and Tehran have tentatively accepted may have paused the fighting, but it has not yet produced a settlement. It has opened a door to talks, but it has not resolved the contradictions that made the war possible in the first place. Iran is still sabre-rattling by threatening the closing of the Strait of Hormuz and has made clear that there can be no meaningful ceasefire, and therefore no meaningful negotiation, if Israel continues to strike Iranian allies in Lebanon. For Tehran, the memorandum is not merely a bilateral understanding with Washington. It is part of a wider regional arrangement that must include Lebanon, Hezbollah, the Strait of Hormuz, and the future of Iran’s nuclear program.

This is where the limits of American power are most visible. Washington wants a deal. It wants the Strait of Hormuz reopened, energy markets calmed, Iran brought back into nuclear talks, and Israel restrained enough to prevent the agreement from collapsing. But wanting these things is different from being able to deliver them. Even after President Donald Trump signed the memorandum, Israel continued to strike targets in Lebanon. The United States has clearly been working to pressure Israel and to secure at least a temporary halt in fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. But this remains a fragile achievement, not a structural solution.

Domestic politics in Washington is just as important. Once the memorandum text circulated on Capitol Hill, criticism came not only from Democrats but also from Republicans. Some Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators viewed the framework as too soft on Iran. Democrats criticized it from a different direction: after a costly war, they argued, Trump appeared to have obtained less than Barack Obama did through the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), while also failing to restore the pre-war status quo in the Strait of Hormuz.

This comparison is politically uncomfortable for Trump. The 2015 nuclear agreement was a lengthy multilateral document, negotiated by the United States, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Iran. It imposed detailed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities and included extensive inspection arrangements. Trump withdrew from that agreement in 2018, condemning it as weak. Yet the current memorandum, at least in its reported form, appears far less specific. It establishes a political framework and opens the possibility of future talks, but it does not yet impose immediate or detailed constraints on Iran’s nuclear program.

The differences matter. The Obama-era agreement followed a logic of negotiated restrictions, verified compliance and phased sanctions relief. The Trump memorandum seems to move in the opposite direction: de-escalate first, provide partial relief early, and leave many difficult details for later. Iran may invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect nuclear facilities, and there may be discussions about diluting stocks of enriched uranium close to weapons-grade levels. But the central questions remain unresolved. What exactly must Iran stop doing? What inspections will be permitted? What happens if Iran violates the agreement? Will sanctions return automatically? None of these questions appears to have been settled.

Even the language of the memorandum seems contested. There is a difference between “guaranteeing” Lebanon’s territorial integrity and merely “respecting” it. There is also a difference between fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz and allowing passage under conditions that Iran deems appropriate. On the nuclear issue, a pledge not to “produce and acquire” nuclear weapons is not identical to a pledge not to “produce and develop” them. These may sound like diplomatic technicalities, but in arms control and regional security, small words can carry large strategic consequences.

Trump, however, has always placed enormous value on the optics of agreement. He is interested not only in what a deal does, but in the act of signing it, displaying it, and selling it as a victory. That helps explain the repeated performance of signing ceremonies and public declarations. For a president shaped by media politics, the image of a deal can sometimes matter almost as much as its substance.

This creates a dangerous mismatch. The Trump team is good at storytelling, but diplomacy requires more than narrative control. It requires professional negotiation, precise language, implementation mechanisms, and the ability to align domestic and international actors around a shared understanding. At present, the United States may believe it has secured Iranian concessions that Iran does not believe it has made. Washington may believe Hormuz has been reopened, while Tehran may believe it has gained a new recognized role in managing passage through the strait. Trump may believe he has launched a stronger nuclear process than Obama did, while Iran may believe it has gained time, sanctions relief, and political recognition without accepting binding limits.

Iran understands the pressure on Trump. With midterm elections approaching, Republicans need a foreign policy victory. They need to argue that Trump was able to act forcefully, end a war quickly, reopen a vital waterway, and bring Iran to the table. Iran also knows that renewed uncertainty in the Strait of Hormuz could raise energy prices and directly hurt American voters. That gives Tehran leverage. It does not need to defeat the United States militarily to extract concessions. It only needs to make continued instability politically costly for Washington.

Israel will be the most important external variable over the next 60 days. Israeli leaders are unlikely to be satisfied with a framework that leaves Iran’s regional network largely intact and postpones the hardest nuclear questions. Yet Israel may still cooperate temporarily. It may be calculated that Trump wants a deal and that, from Israel’s perspective, a Republican victory in the midterms is preferable to a future Democratic administration that may be less sympathetic. For that reason, Israel may accept a short pause in Lebanon and avoid openly undermining Trump before the elections.

But this restraint is unlikely to last indefinitely. For Israel, the United States is an essential supporter, but not the actor facing direct regional threats. Israeli decision-makers will continue to view Iran, Hezbollah, and related groups as immediate security challenges, if not existential threats. Once the American electoral calendar becomes less urgent, Israel may again seek to change the regional balance by force, even if doing so damages Washington’s diplomatic framework.

The lesson is straightforward: the memorandum is not yet peace. It is a political buffer. Trump has gained a story to tell. Iran has gained time and leverage. Israel has gained a short window to assess Washington’s direction. Congress has gained another partisan battlefield. The region has gained a pause, but not stability.

Policymakers should therefore avoid treating the memorandum as a completed achievement. They should increase transparency about the text and its obligations; define the status of the Strait of Hormuz in operational terms; specify what nuclear activities Iran must limit and how verification will work; commit to a clear mechanism for addressing violations; map the links between the Iran talks and the Lebanon front, rather than pretending they are separate crises; and engage regional and international actors beyond the United States and Iran, because a bilateral framework cannot by itself settle a multilateral conflict.

The Swiss meeting’s initial postponement reveals the central weakness of the current approach. A signature can produce a headline, but it cannot by itself produce compliance. Trump may still be able to shape the narrative of victory. Whether he can secure the substance of victory remains far less certain.

Related articles:

The Arrogance of Power: Trump and Putin Could Learn a Lesson, If They Could Learn (3-minute read)

Donald Trump: Self-proclaimed Peacemaker Lacking Fortune and Expertise (3-minute read)

The War in Iran and Cross-Strait Stability: Despite Diminished US Capabilities, a Chinese Attack on Taiwan Remains Unlikely (10-minute read)

The Author