Peace at last?
Rashed Rahman
Ostensibly, the US and Iran have ironed out their differences sufficiently to allow the signing of a peace agreement in Switzerland on June 19, 2026, according to Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif. However, there still remain some discordant notes. While US President Donald Trump says the agreement is now ‘complete’, Iran has yet to formally confirm this. Trump stated the agreement included the toll-free opening of the Strait of Hormuz and the removal of the US naval blockade of Iran. If so, the agreement, even if it is interim in nature and there are still major issues to be settled, meets the desire of the region as well as the world to restore shipping oil through the Hormuz Strait. Trump railed once again against Israel for continuing its attacks on Lebanon, a spoiler role Israel has yet to abandon, and asked all sides (including Hezbollah) to ‘stand down’. It may be recalled that Iran has made the ceasing of Israeli attacks on Lebanon a firm condition of any agreement, interim or permanent.
In essence the coming together of the warring sides is predicated on a ‘framework’ agreement that posits a ceasing of military actions and reactions and then a negotiating process to take up the weightier issues separating the two sides. According to the Mehr news agency, the details of the Iran-US peace plan are as follows:
· An immediate and permanent end to the “war on all fronts”, including in Lebanon.
· The US and its allies must propose a plan to rebuild Iran with funding of at least $ 300 billion.
· The US commits to refrain from interfering in Iran’s internal affairs.
· The US will completely lift the naval blockade and withdraw its troops from areas adjacent to Iran within 30 days (it is not clear if this includes the US military bases dotted around the Persian Gulf).
· The Strait of Hormuz will be opened within 30 days, subject to Iran’s demands (not spelt out).
· Sanctions on Iranian oil sales will be lifted.
· The parties will then hold negotiations within 60 days to reach a final agreement on the nuclear issue.
· The US must unfreeze $ 24 billion in Iranian assets, half of which should be released with the start of nuclear talks.
· Iran’s missile programme and Tehran’s support for its regional allies are not among the topics of a possible final agreement.
These points, ostensibly forming the framework agreement, already point to difficulties ahead in the negotiations to follow its signing. First and foremost, it remains to be seen, ‘railing’ aside, whether Trump can restrain Israel from continuing its aggression in Lebanon. Second, it is not clear the US has agreed reparations to reconstruct the damage inflicted by it on Iran to the tune of $ 300 billion. Trump is so far uncharacteristically quiet on this issue, since it implies the US committed aggression against Iran unjustifiably. Third, having failed to bring about regime change despite assassinating Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it remains to be seen whether Washington will haul back its and Israel’s covert subversive activities inside Iran. Fourth, the nuclear issue. Trump wants even civilian nuclear activities shut down, and Iran’s enriched uranium passed on to Washington to destroy. This goes far beyond the 2015 Obama agreement with Iran and awaits an agreed outcome, which appears difficult. Fifth, Iran appears to have rejected curbs on its missile programme and support to its ‘Axis of Resistance’ allies Hezbollah, the Yemeni Houthis, and perhaps even Hamas in Gaza. Tel Aviv of course will not be pleased, having been on the receiving end of effective Iranian missiles since 2025.
Although Iran’s position seems secure in the light of the above framework agreement points and the likely Iranian approach to these, Tehran must also look over its shoulder at the hardliners and popular opinion that has already come out in the streets to oppose the framework agreement and the very notion of talks, questioning whether the Iranian rulers have forgotten the blood of Khamenei.
One may be forgiven for posing so many ticklish objections and a critique of the framework agreement given the trajectory of war and peace between the two sides and Trump’s incorrigible constant shifting of the goalposts on virtually a daily basis. Trust is the big missing elephant in the room for both sides. One nevertheless hopes for an end to military hostilities, even difficult negotiations being preferable to further bloodshed and destruction. However, in the light of the above, don’t hold your breath in anticipation of a sincere, lasting peace between the antagonists.
rashed-rahman.blogspot.com
