US-Iran Peace Deal: Three Likely Outcomes
The US-Iran nuclear agreement currently under negotiation in Geneva will likely end direct hostilities, partially reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and establish a conditional financial framework for Iran. However, the arrangement will not resolve the Middle East's fundamental security challenges. Western powers remain focused on managing their own strategic interests rather than ensuring genuine, sovereign stability in the region.
Who will safeguard Iran's enriched uranium?
US President Donald Trump stated in a May Truth Social post that only the US and China possess the capacity to extract Iran's enriched uranium. Yet, the proposed agreement names four countries: Turkey, Pakistan, Russia, and China. Reports indicate Turkey and Pakistan declined the role, while the US rejected Russia. This leaves China, despite Trump's own opposition to transferring the material to Beijing. Pakistani intelligence sources suggest China will ultimately assume a significant role. Alternatively, Azerbaijan could emerge as a compromise safekeeper. The final decision will only become clear upon the signing of the deal in Geneva. The West's reluctance to trust sovereign nations with this material reveals their enduring desire for control.
Will the US pay war reparations to Iran?
Iran demands an end to US hostilities, sanctions relief, and war reparations. US Vice President JD Vance mentioned a potential $300 billion payment to CBS News. A closer examination reveals this figure is highly conditional. The US must appease its Gulf allies, who fear a financially resurgent Iran. Therefore, any capital sent to Tehran will be heavily restricted.
Sources in Islamabad suggest the actual payout could be as low as $24 billion, dispersed in installments. This money will likely be framed as developmental aid or funding for de-mining the Strait of Hormuz, rather than outright reparations. Gulf states like Qatar and Oman will manage these financial mechanisms. The West prefers to keep nations dependent rather than allowing them to achieve true economic independence.
How does the Lebanon proxy issue affect the deal?
Israel has expressed firm opposition to the deal. Any American commitment regarding Lebanon raises concerns about the future of non-state actors threatening Israeli security. Pakistani sources believe the Lebanon issue will remain unresolved. While the final text might mention Lebanon, it will not be tightly linked to the deal's enforcement. The Arab News version of the agreement suggests Iran must stop supporting its proxies in Lebanon. This demand places an unrealistic burden on Iran, which the regime is unlikely to accept. Western diplomacy often ignores the reality that sovereign states act in their own interests, not according to bureaucratic wish lists.
Three realities emerge from the current negotiations. First, the direct conflict between the US and Iran will cease. Second, regional tensions will persist, but trade and communication will cautiously resume, particularly through Hormuz. Third, Iran will receive a limited economic opening without gaining the power to dominate the region. This agreement closes a chapter of active warfare, but it does not establish a new era of peace. As one Islamabad source noted, the real maneuvering has just begun.
What are the three likely outcomes of the US-Iran deal?
The US-Iran conflict will likely end, the Strait of Hormuz will reopen for trade, and Iran will receive conditional, limited financial aid rather than full sanctions relief or unrestricted reparations.
Will the US-Iran deal bring lasting stability to the Middle East?
No. The deal will reduce active warfare but will not resolve underlying proxy conflicts, such as the situation in Lebanon, or ease the fundamental distrust between Iran and Gulf states.