The US-Iran agreement - the first signed by an American and Iranian president since the 1979 Islamic Revolution - is being hailed by its supporters as the deal of the century, BTA writes, citing a Reuters report.
For Tehran's rivals in the Middle East - from Israel to the Gulf states and factions in Lebanon - it looks more like the curse of the century: a deal that could give Iran more security, more legitimacy and, ultimately, more influence.
US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian signed the preliminary agreement on Wednesday, ending the three-month war. Trump chose to formalize the deal in Versailles, on the sidelines of the G7 summit - in a setting that was widely seen as symbolic of the reshaping of the international order after the conflict.
The 14-point agreement extends the ceasefire by 60 days, including in Lebanon, to allow for talks on a lasting solution and to address issues such as Iran's nuclear program.
“For Washington and Tehran, this is a great deal - the deal of the century, from which there is no turning back,” says Lebanese commentator Sarkis Naum. “The probability of success outweighs the risk of failure. Iran cannot endure any more economic pain under sanctions, and Trump has no incentive to start another war“.
THE DEAL IS A DEFEAT FOR ISRAEL
Israeli analyst Dani Citrinovich describes the agreement as a strategic disaster. What was presented as a joint US-Israeli campaign to weaken or even destroy the Islamic Republic has, he says, become US recognition of Iran.
“We set out to overthrow the regime with US support, and in the end Washington effectively legitimised and strengthened the very regime we wanted to overthrow,“ says Citrinovich, who is a senior Iran researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.
He argues that the deal fails to meet any of Israel’s key demands: it contains no restrictions on Iran’s missile programme or allies, and it offers no clear path to dismantling its nuclear facilities. Even Israel’s campaign in Lebanon is constrained by the ceasefire framework imposed at Iran’s insistence.
The implications are both political and strategic. The deal undermines Netanyahu’s narrative on Iran and exposes the limits of his influence over an American president seen as a close ally of Israel.
Citrinovich says Iran has gained room to maneuver and that the deal risks entrenching its position while deepening Israel’s isolation. “Everything is bad,” he says bluntly. “And it’s only going to get worse.”
If the deal holds, Iran appears to have secured the most favorable outcome: an end to the war, gradual easing of sanctions, renewed oil exports and the prospect of huge reconstruction funds – as well as tacit acceptance of its political system.
Washington, by contrast, has failed to achieve the goals it shared with Israel: overthrowing the religious authority, dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, and limiting the country’s regional influence. Rather than changing Iran’s position, the deal has strengthened it.
The United States and Israel launched the war against Iran on February 28 with the assassination of 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior figures in the early days. The conflict has escalated, killing more than 7,000 people, mostly in Iran and Lebanon, raising energy prices and raising fears of a food crisis in developing countries.
IRAN GAINES ADVANTAGE IN LEBANON
For Lebanon, the agreement shifts the balance of power in Iran's favor, strengthening the role of the Tehran-backed group “Hezbollah“ and includes the country in the broader US-Iranian framework, while at the same time rendering negotiations between Beirut and Israel meaningless.
It binds Lebanon to a 60-day ceasefire and commits all parties to a cessation of hostilities on all fronts.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun warned last week that Iran cannot negotiate on Lebanon's behalf on issues such as the ceasefire and Israel's withdrawal from the south of the country.
However, sources close to “Hezbollah“ argue the opposite: that the US-Iranian framework strengthens Lebanon's position, raising the negotiations to a higher level. According to them, Tehran and Washington can put pressure on their allies – – – – Hezbollah“ and Israel – to reach an agreement.
The fears are strongest in the Gulf, where Iranian attacks have shaken confidence in long-standing security arrangements. The Gulf countries have been the main losers from the war – spectators of the decisions that completely changed the security landscape, and are now left to deal with the consequences.
Sources in the Gulf say the deal is already changing strategic thinking: it undermines confidence in US protection, establishes Iran as a permanent regional power, and accelerates a shift toward seeking reconciliation rather than confrontation.
But Iran expert Alex Vatanka dismisses these concerns. Rather than a capitulation, he sees the agreement as the least bad outcome after years of failed attempts at coercion.
“They tried to defeat Iran through military force. They failed. The alternative would have been catastrophic – "A wider war could devastate the Gulf states for decades," said Watanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
The real challenges lie ahead - implementing the deal, the pending nuclear talks and the regional backlash that will be provoked, he said. "This is a significant moment, but it is not the end. This is just the beginning."
ISRAEL COULD BECOME AN OBSTACLE
Some analysts see Israel as the main factor of uncertainty. While it is unlikely that the country will derail a process led by Trump, they warn that there is still a risk - especially in Lebanon.
“Israel has been isolated after this war, both in the region and in the world“, said an Iranian official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“Iran got what it wanted… We did not abandon our friends, such as “Hezbollah“, but instead we were even ready to go so far as to leave the negotiating table and resume the war for them“, added another Iranian official.