US-Iran Deal: Oil Flows Return, but Regional Tensions Persist

The United States and Iran have entered a 60-day memorandum of understanding to cease hostilities and negotiate issues including nuclear enrichment and frozen assets. While the deal restores shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, experts at Chatham House and the Atlantic Council suggest the agreement provides only a temporary reprieve rather than a long-term settlement.

Why is the US-Iran agreement seen as a temporary measure?

The interim deal signed by representatives from the US and Iran focuses on a 60-day window to address contentious issues. These include Iran’s nuclear program, its enriched uranium stockpile, and the release of billions of dollars in frozen assets.

Analysts express skepticism regarding the timeline. Neil Quilliam, a Middle East expert at London’s Chatham House, described the agreement as “just a big Band-Aid.” He noted that future conflict remains likely despite the immediate cessation of hostilities.

The current timeframe stands in stark contrast to previous diplomatic efforts. For example, the 2015 nuclear agreement required a painstaking 18-month negotiation process to reach a settlement. This current 60-day window offers much less time for resolving deep-seated structural issues.

How does the deal impact global energy and the Strait of Hormuz?

Under the terms of the memorandum, Washington will lift its naval blockade of Iran. In exchange, Tehran must allow free passage for all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. This waterway is a critical artery for the global economy.

Alia Brahimi of the Atlantic Council noted that Iran has already demonstrated its ability to cause “cascading stress globally” by targeting tankers. The strategic importance of the Strait means that any future disruption could immediately impact international energy markets.

While the deal allows oil and gas to flow again, the underlying vulnerability remains. Analysts suggest that the ability of Iran to impose economic pressure through localized strikes on tankers remains a proven capability.

What are the implications for Gaza and Lebanon?

The interim deal includes a ceasefire in Lebanon, which currently appears to be holding. However, experts warn that such ceasefires often fail to address the core drivers of conflict.

Mkhaimar Abusada, a political science professor at al-Azhar University, stated that the ceasefire in Gaza is largely maintained because Hamas fears a full-scale Israeli ground invasion if they resume firing. He described the situation in Gaza as “disastrous.”

Alia Brahimi argued that previous deals in Gaza failed because they did not address three critical pillars:

• The Past: Unresolved war crimes.
• The Present: The disarmament of Hamas.
• The Future: A viable pathway to a Palestinian state.

Comparison of Regional Ceasefire Stability

How will Gulf states adapt to a more assertive Iran?

The Sunni Arab Gulf states, including Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, face significant long-term challenges. These nations recently experienced Iranian drone strikes that damaged civilian infrastructure.

H.A. Hellyer of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) suggested that Gulf states may now focus on containing a more confident and potentially more belligerent Iranian regime. He noted a growing consensus among these states that they cannot rely solely on the United States for security.

This shift in perception is tied to how the U.S. manages regional conflicts. Danny Orbach, a military history professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, suggested that Washington’s unwillingness to accept significant casualties or economic pain sends a signal regarding its superpower status.

What is Israel’s stance on the new ceasefire?

Israel has expressed dismay and disappointment regarding the interim deal. The primary concern for Israeli officials is that the agreement does not address Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities or the funding of its “Axis of Resistance.”

The “Axis of Resistance” refers to a coalition of militant movements, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and various militias in Iraq. Israel’s strategic goal remains achieving structural change in the Middle East to prevent these groups from threatening its existence.

According to Danny Orbach, this stability will likely not return until the memory of the October 2023 attacks fades, a process he believes will take years.