Trump's Iran agreement and the limits of divergence with Israel

The 14-point memorandum signed by Trump does not merely mean a temporary halt to the war or paving the way for a nuclear agreement. The agreement also carries critical importance in terms of regional power balances, the US-Israel relationship, and Iran's normalization. The existence of those who defend the agreement as a diplomatic victory and a historic opportunity, against those who interpret it as a major concession to Iran, shows that the economic and political cost of the war is generating immense pressure. However, mistakes made in the coming period and the failure to reach a final agreement will serve to allow the hawks to set the agenda once again. This could cause the US and Israel, which are currently diverging on Iran, to switch back to war mode.

REACTIONS TO THE AGREEMENT

The diversity of reactions to Trump's agreement with Iran varies depending on how different parties read it. International actors and regional countries are showing a cautious sense of relief due to the end of the war, the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and the pursuit of a diplomatic solution. While some Republicans in the US are adopting a cautious stance, there are also figures who sharply criticize Trump. The hawks and pro-Israel figures, along with security circles and opposition figures in Israel, view the agreement as granting excessive concessions to Iran. The fact that the agreement is not a final solution but rather a temporary and fragile memorandum has led even its supporters to make statements along the lines of "let's see how it works in practice."

From Iran's perspective, since the agreement means economic relief through the lifting of sanctions, it is being presented as a success by the pragmatic wing. Indeed, the agreement text, which promises the lifting of sanctions and $300 billion in economic investment, mentions that the "status quo" on Iran's uranium enrichment will be preserved. The hardliners, on the other hand, will argue both that America cannot be trusted and that Iran's nuclear and regional bargaining power has been eroded. While the agreement stands out as a diplomatic success that reduces the possibility of war for now, rather than producing a final solution on fundamental issues such as Iran's nuclear program, missile capacity, and regional proxies, it marks the beginning of a new negotiation process.

A NEW PHASE IN US-ISRAEL RELATIONS

This agreement will not bring US-Israel relations to a breaking point, but it will make the power imbalance and differing priorities in the relationship more apparent. While Washington views the agreement in terms of stopping the war, opening the Strait of Hormuz, and stabilizing energy prices, Israel will evaluate the same text in the context of the Iranian regime's survival, the retention of enriched uranium, the failure to completely eliminate ballistic missiles, and the continued support for Iranian proxies like Hezbollah. While Netanyahu reserves Israel's right to use force in Lebanon, Trump's remarks that "destroying an entire building just because a Hezbollah member entered it" is excessive signaled the continuation of tensions between the two countries.

The strategic alliance between the two countries will continue, but tactical divergence that limits Israel's operational freedom will come to the fore. America will not want to allow Israel to sabotage this agreement, and Netanyahu is also avoiding direct confrontation with Trump. Netanyahu has signaled that he will try to declare victory by arguing that the war's objectives have been achieved, but from now on, he may not easily find America behind him. The US-Israel relationship appears to be directly affected by tensions on the Iran-Lebanon front in the coming period. Although the agreement includes the phrase "America and its allies," the fact that Israel is not a party to the agreement and its statements that it will determine its own policy indicate that tensions between the two countries will continue for some time.

WILL IRAN NORMALIZE?

There are many reasons for a quick "no" to this question. The fact that the ideological organization of the state has determined its security and foreign policy for many years led to Kissinger's famous words: "They need to decide whether they are a state or a cause." Having entered a long-standing challenge and regional struggle with Israel and America, if Iran's leadership reaches a final agreement after the war, the path to normalization will open for it. However, there are many actors who could cause it to squander this opportunity, and their chances of success should not be underestimated. In other words, even if Iran embarks on the path to normalization, there will be forces, primarily Israel, that want to stop it.

If they cannot reach an agreement with Trump in the next 60-day period, the likelihood of a return to war and an ongoing spiral of conflict will increase. This scenario could bring Trump and Netanyahu closer again, and the hardliners against Iran would practically celebrate. Iran appears to have managed, albeit late, to drive a wedge between Trump and Netanyahu, and it should view the coming period as a strategic opportunity to make a new opening with America and put Iran on the path to normalization. Missing this historic chance would be a great disappointment for both the Iranian people and the region, which has been unable to escape war.

The Trump administration appears to have abandoned its maximalist stance and come to a much more reasonable point, but if the negotiation process proves inconclusive, it could return to "factory settings." This could mean a historic opportunity wasted. America ending the war, restricting Israel's room for maneuver, and Iran taking steps toward normalization could turn into a historic turning point for the region. However, if Iran, as after Obama's nuclear agreement, gets caught up in increasing its regional influence and creates instability, it would be back to square one. If the final agreement proves lasting and brings stability to the region, it could even become possible for the tactical differences between America and Israel to gradually turn into a permanent strategic divergence.