Political and military circles broadly agree that everything that unfolded during the 100 day war between Iran and the United States, followed by indirect negotiations culminating in the Memorandum of Understanding, amounted to a victory for Iran.
According to this assessment, Iran succeeded in securing most of its political and economic demands while reinforcing its position as a regional power that can no longer be ignored.
Moving beyond general impressions and examining the text of the memorandum itself, the first striking feature is the absence of any reference to the support fronts in Yemen and Iraq, as well as the complete omission of the Palestinian issue. At the same time, the Lebanese front is explicitly emphasised as part of the agreement.
More Than a Bilateral Agreement
It is important to recognise that the memorandum signed by the Iranian and American presidents extends well beyond the interests of its two signatories.
The formal agreement, expected to be signed within 60 days, could mark the end of the era of unipolar dominance and the beginning of a new regional order in which major powers such as China and Russia, alongside regional states including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan, assume greater roles in the economic and security affairs of the Middle East.
The challenge facing the United States is that the spearhead of its colonial project, represented by the Zionist entity that has long managed American interests across the region, has been largely excluded from these emerging arrangements.
Despite the public disagreements between the US administration and Netanyahu’s government, particularly in the days leading up to the agreement, it would be mistaken to conclude that Washington is abandoning Israel.
The dispute should instead be viewed as a temporary political disagreement. Should Israel face a genuine existential threat, the United States would undoubtedly intervene to support it, as it has done repeatedly throughout history.
Lebanon’s Central Role
The article argues that the principal obstacle delaying the memorandum was Iran’s insistence that the Lebanese front be included within the agreement.
Netanyahu reportedly viewed this as an admission of defeat, not only before Iran but also before Hezbollah.
He publicly declared that he would never accept an Iranian role that restricted Israel’s freedom of military action in Lebanon, stating, “This will not happen as long as I am alive.”
The opening clause of the memorandum calls for the “immediate and permanent end to the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”
Particular attention is drawn to the phrase “all fronts.”
The article asks why the text refers to “all fronts” rather than limiting itself to the Iranian and Lebanese fronts, while simultaneously avoiding any explicit mention of the other theatres implied by this wording.
Why Other Fronts Were Left Undefined
According to the analysis, each of these fronts carries significant geopolitical importance in shaping the region after the agreement.
Although Lebanon played a decisive military role during the conflict, its political influence over the redistribution of regional power remains more limited than other fronts due to its geography, Israel’s control along its southern border, the Syrian authorities controlling its eastern and northern borders, and the alignment of the official Lebanese political system with what the article describes as the colonial project.
The Yemeni Front
The Yemeni front intersects with the strategic interests of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Sudan because of its control over the entrance to the Red Sea, a vital economic artery for these states.
Granting Iran a major supervisory role over the Bab al Mandab Strait would effectively place Tehran in control of three of the world’s most important maritime trade routes.
The article argues that this outcome would be unacceptable to the major capitalist powers, including those that opposed the US Iran war.
It also notes that China has strategic interests in the region that cannot be overlooked when determining future arrangements for this critical shipping corridor.
For these reasons, ending the conflict on the Yemeni front would require a separate agreement that accommodates the interests of all parties involved.
The Iraqi Front
The Iraqi front is described as equally complex.
It represents Iran’s geopolitical extension on one side and Syria’s on the other.
According to the article, any expanded Iranian role in Iraq with American approval would encounter opposition from within Iraq itself, as well as strong objections from Türkiye.
The analysis points to Türkiye’s military presence across approximately 10% of northern Syria extending towards the Iraqi border and argues that Ankara views the collapse of the Syrian national state as a strategic victory.
On the southern side, Israel considers itself a partner in what the article describes as the colonial project’s success in Syria.
Taking into account the Turkish Israeli strategic relationship and Russia’s interests in any geopolitical changes affecting a region of major economic importance to Moscow, the article concludes that Iraq also requires a separate political settlement.
Palestine Remains the Central Front
The article describes the Palestinian front as the most complex of all, arguing that it is the principal arena in the confrontation with the colonial project throughout the region.
According to this view, Operation Al Aqsa Flood became the catalyst that set broader global changes in motion.
The article further argues that the remaining fronts should be understood as extensions of the Palestinian front and of the regional role played by the Israeli occupation.
For this reason, it contends that including conditions related to the Palestinian issue within the agreement would amount to an American and Israeli acknowledgement of defeat.
Such an outcome, the article argues, remains completely unacceptable to colonial decision making circles.
It also claims that many Arab governments oppose such a development because it would create both domestic and international political pressure, particularly for states that have already signed agreements with Israel or seek to do so in the future.
Furthermore, assigning Iran a decisive role in resolving the Palestinian issue is described as unacceptable to regional powers such as Türkiye, as well as to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.
The Negotiations Are Far From Over
Taking all of these complexities into account, the article concludes that merely referring to other fronts, even without naming them directly, represents a significant step in the wider process of reshaping the region.
According to the analysis, the files relating to these fronts remain open, and the outcome of future negotiations will depend on several factors.
Among the most important will be the political and popular position of forces that support the resistance, their ability to unite behind a common programme, and their willingness to act as a side that emerged victorious from the war.
The article concludes that such an approach could strengthen the political resistance and improve its position in the negotiations that continue to shape the region.
