Marwa Osman on the MoU
https://t.me/Marwa_OsmanLB/5661
Today may well go down as a historic day. To Donald Trump: atta boy…you lived through your wildest gambles and you got educated in 100 days how not to mess with sovereign nations.
The United States has reportedly signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran, and if the reported terms are accurate, Tehran has emerged from this confrontation in a remarkably strong position.
The document, signed remotely just moments ago according to reports, appears to be far more than a ceasefire arrangement. Analysts are already describing it as a major strategic setback for Washington.
Trump entered this confrontation with ambitious objectives: weakening the Iranian system, dismantling its nuclear program, and curbing its ballistic missile capabilities. Yet he now appears to be endorsing terms that, in the eyes of many observers, solidify Iran’s regional standing more than ever before. The political fallout in Washington has already begun, with critics arguing that the agreement amounts to a series of American concessions without delivering meaningful security gains for either the United States or its allies.
1. The first shock came from Trump’s own remarks.
Just a few hours ago, Trump reportedly stated that it would be “unfair” for Iran to be denied ballistic missiles while other countries in the region and around the world possess similar capabilities.
The significance of such a statement cannot be overstated.
In practical terms, it grants unprecedented political legitimacy to Iran’s ballistic missile program and effectively removes the issue from future negotiations. Unsurprisingly, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei responded by reiterating Tehran’s long-standing position: Iran’s missiles were built to be launched, not negotiated away.
2. The second major development concerns the nuclear file.
According to the reported framework, Iran’s nuclear program itself has been removed from immediate negotiations and deferred to a later stage. Tehran would retain its existing nuclear infrastructure while agreeing to reduce enrichment levels and refrain from developing nuclear weapons.
In other words, Iran appears to have secured international acceptance of what it has maintained for years: preserving its nuclear program while committing not to pursue weaponization.
3. The most consequential aspect of the agreement may be the future of the Strait of Hormuz.
Under the reported arrangements, the strait could effectively transition from a fully international maritime corridor into a zone of Iranian influence administered in cooperation with Oman. Some reports even suggest the possibility of future transit fees or customs charges on vessels passing through the waterway.
If realized, such an outcome would place one of the world’s most critical energy arteries under unprecedented Iranian influence.
4. Lebanon features prominently in the memorandum.
According to statements attributed to Esmaeil Baghaei, Lebanon is mentioned three times in the first section of the document, and the agreement is reportedly linked to an Israeli enemy withdrawal from Lebanese territory.
If accurate, this would make Lebanon a formal component of the broader regional framework emerging from these negotiations.
In the broader picture, Iran appears to have emerged from this confrontation having secured gains across virtually every major file. Reports suggest the release of up to $100 billion in previously frozen assets, the establishment of a $300 billion reconstruction fund financed by Persian Gulf states, the lifting of maritime restrictions and oil sanctions, and the prospect of significant foreign investment.
Perhaps most importantly, Tehran appears to have preserved both its enriched uranium stockpile and the core capabilities of the nuclear program that Trump once pledged to eliminate.
If these reports prove accurate, what happened today will be remembered as a landmark geopolitical event, one with consequences that will reverberate throughout the region and beyond for years to come.
The real question now is how Trump and Netanyahu intend to navigate the political storm that such an agreement is likely to generate. Signs of that backlash are already emerging, and the coming days could prove exceptionally turbulent on both sides of the Atlantic.
One thing is certain: The statement once dismissed by many as pure rhetoric now appears, to have materialized almost word for word. At the outset of the war, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem declared directly after the 2024/2025 war that the objective was not merely to force Israeli occupation troops out of Lebanese territory.
Perhaps the most striking aspect of this entire episode is that a statement once dismissed by many as pure rhetoric now appears, at least in the eyes of its supporters, to have materialized almost word for word. At the outset of the war, Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem declared that the objective was not merely to force Israeli troops out of Lebanese territory, but, in his memorable phrase, to “drag Netanyahu,, the rabid dog, back to the kennel from which he came”.
This agreement is a strategic retreat by Washington, and by default by Tel Aviv. The significance extends beyond an Israeli eneny withdrawal from Lebanon. The broader political outcome has effectively compelled Netanyahu to retreat from maximalist war aims and return to a position far weaker than the one from which he began. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, the phrase has undeniably acquired a new resonance in light of the events that have unfolded.
Glory to our heroes in the Lebanese Resistance and the IRGC.