“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!… …Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” (Bloomberg, June 17]
In his usual triumphant and arrogant tones, Donald Trump declared his victory against Iran. According to his narrative, he had forced Iran to beg for an agreement and to open the strait of Hormuz to allow the free flow of oil to global markets.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed in Islamabad, Pakistan, opens the strait of Hormuz to free navigation and trade of oil and by-products and “extends” the ceasefire for another 60 days (and more if necessary, according to the US). During this period the two parties will negotiate the final agreement on the issues on which serious differences exist: primarily the issue of uranium enrichment which can be used to manufacture nuclear weapons and the status quo of the Hormuz Strait.
“This wasn’t easy, I can tell you” Trump told his dinner companions in Versailles. And Macron who only very recently was mocked and humiliated by Trump in public, responded by exclaiming “Bravo”…
Who was desperate?
Very few see things the way Trump does.
On Friday 19 June, Trump stated on (his “Truth”) social media:
“We didn’t meet out of desperation, Iran did. They are FINISHED!”
So, the all-powerful president of the all-powerful super-power, had to intervene in order to clarify that it was not the US who was desperate to meet Iran and strike a deal, but Iran. Why would such a clarification be necessary? Only because the deal is widely seen, even among Trump’s supporters, as a result of the US’s inability to achieve its aims in this war.
The reality of the war fronts testifies to the fact that he had fallen into his own trap, and he was desperate to make concessions in order to get a deal. He ends by stating, referring to Iran, that “they are FINISHED” (with capital letters). Well, every sensible person on this planet knows that “They are not finished”.
Just holding out would mean victory
All Iran had to do in this confrontation was to hold out and survive the attacks. If it did, the regime would be able to claim victory.
And to the extent that the US-Israel axis was not able to overthrow the regime and install one loyal to the West; destroy or capture the nuclear facilities and enriched uranium of Iran; destroy its missile and drone systems and its ability to re-manufacture them, then the whole military adventure of the US and Israel can be described as a failure.
Iran was able to hold out. It was much better prepared than Trump and his associates had anticipated. Its weaponry was more developed than the US and Israel expected. It had the assistance of Russia and China (in terms of providing satellite information about targets as well as military equipment) – this is not proven but is widely accepted by capitalist outlets as a fact.
So, despite 40 days of air raids and attacks on military installations, it still represented, militarily, a serious threat to the attacking armies. The US did not dare to capture any land or island positions, as Trump was threatening repeatedly. An invasion of Iran would be suicidal, therefore impossible – as we predicted from the beginning.
The result was the closure of Hormuz, the skyrocketing of oil prices and the rise of inflation globally. Trump’s support was in free fall, with only just over 35% supporting his war in recent polls. The US had no way of defending free transit in the Hormuz strait. The world economy was in danger of being driven into recession as a result.
Trump, at some stage, seems to have woken up to the reality of what he was creating. On Wednesday June 17, the day the MOU was signed, he stated:
“The one president I did not want to be was the late great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that, and who knows what would have happened”.
Well, that shows who was desperate to get a deal. Hoover was the president who led the US into the greatest economic crisis in its history, the Great Depression after the 1929 crash and the slump of the 1930s that followed.
Netanyahu is angry
It took Netanyahu a full day to comment publicly on the deal, and when he did, all he could say was:
“There are cases in which President Trump and I do not see eye to eye,”
The Economist 16.06.2026 in an article titled “The end of the war in Iran threatens “glorious failure” for Israel” describes quite accurately the situation:
“Donald Trump’s deal with Iran leaves America’s ally without any strategic gains… On February 28th hundreds of American and Israeli warplanes took off simultaneously to launch the opening salvo of their war on Iran… But with the agreement by Donald Trump and Iran’s leaders meant to bring their war to an end, the nature of that partnership has shifted. Israel has been shut out of the negotiations with Iran. And the agreement signed between America and Iran on June 17th deals with few, if any, of Israel’s concerns”. (Our emphasis).
This is possibly pushing the Netanyahu government into crisis, especially as there are elections coming up in the autumn of this year.
But there is another aspect to Netanyahu’s calculations which must not be underestimated: he may not be able to attack Iran without US help, but he will continue to attack Lebanon with the pretext of defending Israel against Hezbollah’s attacks as well as extending Israeli presence the West Bank and Gaza.
The deal with Iran is fragile. And Netanyahu will do everything in its power to make it collapse, if possible.
On the issue of Iran’s regime
Opposing the imperialist (US-Israel) intervention and war on Iran, should not be confused with providing support to the theocratic, barbaric, anti-working class and misogynistic capitalist regime of the mullahs.
This is only repeating positions that have already been expressed in other material (read here and here) but it is still necessary. The attack by the US against a country that has been strangled for decades by all possible means by imperialism, has to be condemned by workers and the Left internationally despite the reactionary character of its government. The most conscious activists in the working class and the Left should aim at the defeat of the imperialist intervention, not just by propaganda to counter the imperialist lies and hypocrisy, but by all practical means: organizing demonstrations, organizing strikes, blocking transfer of weapons to the war fronts, fighting against governments that support the US and Israeli plans, etc.
The double standards used by the West re the war in Ukraine and the genocide in Palestine, is a powerful argument in the hands of the anti-war activists and the Left. If the regime in Iran was overthrown and a pro-West one established, the new regime would be neither democratic nor respecting human, trade union, feminist, etc, rights – the experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria are telling, not to mention Afghanistan where the Taliban returned to power after 20 years of US presence.
Of course, the failure of imperialism to get rid of the regime means that the latter will be strengthened. This is an objective fact. But still, the fundamental position must be clear: the main enemy is imperialism. Its victories strengthen its stranglehold on the working classes around the planet; its defeats encourage struggle internationally against the system. The liberation of the Iranian masses can only be realized through their own struggle, not through the military intervention of imperialist forces.
This is why the Left, and more specifically the anti-capitalist one, must have an independent position: first and primarily against imperialism, but also against the oppressive regime.
Fragility
The fragility of the Islamabad MOU was revealed hours after it was signed up.
A meeting was arranged for Switzerland, on the shores of lake Lucerne, on Friday June 19, to start negotiating the final deal. But it was postponed after Iran’s reaction, because in the meantime Israel started new attacks on Beirut. It was transferred to Sunday 21st. But on Saturday 20th, Iran declared the strait of Hormuz closed again, because of Israel’s continued attacks on Lebanon. Trump’s initial remarks were directed against Israel’s attacks, but on Sunday morning Trump accused Iran as responsible for the supposed provocations by Hezbollah against Israel, and again threatened with massive bombings. The Iranian delegation’s reaction was to leave the negotiating table after 80 minutes, having already refused to take photos together with the American delegation at the start of the meeting.
But both sides did return to the negotiating table, despite all the tensions between them. The reason is that they both need a solution to this conflict: the US because it cannot continue a full-scale war, and Iran because it is in a position to extract concessions from the US and possibly end, at least partially, the US sanctions.
But having said this it would be naïve to expect to have peace in the region.
What did Trump want and what did the MOU give him?
A close reading of the Islamabad MOU clarifies the picture about who gains more from it. To start with we need to remember Trump’s (and Israel’s) aims out of this war:
- They wanted regime change. They murdered the key persons in Iran’s government, but they could not find loyal supporters to replace them – on the contrary the hardliners increased their weight.
- They appealed to the Iranian people to rise up get in touch with them, in order to get rid of the regime – this did not happen.
- They appealed to the Kurdish militias in Iraq asking them to join their war on Iran – it didn’t happen.
- They wanted to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme and capture the uranium already enriched – it didn’t happen.
- They wanted to destroy Iran’s missile systems – they failed.
The Islamabad MOU (read the full official text here) did not address any of the substantial issues that actually led to the war, particularly the issue of the nuclear weapons. On that, it is actually behind Obama’s deal with Iran in 2015 (to be taken up below).
What it “achieved” was to open the strait of Hormuz, but of course the strait was open before Trump and Netanyahu launched their war on Iran. Today they are open again, but with Iran in a position to bargain the imposition of levies on the carriers that pass through it (see below).
In reality, in order to get Iran’s agreement to the MOU, the US had to make s, significant concessions (to Iran). These are made quite clear if one has a close look at the memorandum (our emphasis throughout).
- Point 1 states that “the US and Iran and their allies declare immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon”.
This is a clear concession to the Iranian demand to force Israel stop the attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
- Point 2 states that “The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs”.
This is forcing the US to concede (only in words of course) that it won’t assist or encourage internal opposition to the regime.
- Point 5 of the MOU states that “Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa… The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz...”
This is giving Iran (and Oman) a direct role in determining the status quo of the strait of Hormuz. Passing through the strait will be free but only for 60 days – the future will be decided through negotiations for the final agreement.
- Point 6 states “The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
This is a huge amount. It is very doubtful that this amount will ever be raised and provided to Iran. But the fact that the US was forced to make this concession is significant. Some speculate that this is aimed at allowing the US to establish itself economically on the ground. This cannot be seen as realistic – there is no basis to assume that the Iranian leaders would accept this.
- Point 7 states that “The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary…”.
This is another massive concession to Iran, as sanctions have been in existence against Iran since the revolution of 1979. The Obama deal with Iran of 2015 (see later) never went this far, it only eliminated secondary sanctions related to the nuclear programme.
- Point 8 refers to Iran’s reaffirmation that it will not procure or develop nuclear weapons – this nothing really new, it is discussed below.
- Point 9 states that “…The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region”.
A clearly Iranian demand is satisfied here.
- Point 10 states that “The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU and until the termination of sanctions, US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services…”.
In other words, despite the existing US and international sanctions, Iran will be allowed to sell oil and by-products immediately after the MOU based on waivers from the US. Another Iranian demand satisfied.
- Point 11 refers to the frozen assets of Iran: “The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU”.
This is another massive concession to Iran. The frozen assets are estimated to be between $124 bn and $167 bn.
- Last but not least, point 14 reads: “The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution”.
The final agreement will have to be agreed by the UN Security Council, the same council that Trump has tried to dissolve by creating his (ridiculous and war-mongering) “Board of Peace” with the pretext of attaining peace in Palestine. A clearly Iranian demand, wanting to involve Russia and China, members of the UNSC with veto rights, as “guarantors”.
Each and every one of the above points represents a concession by the US. They are terms imposed on the US by Iran’s ability to withstand the attacks and hold the world economy hostage by closing the strait of Hormuz, threatening the global economy not only with the rise of inflation but also with a deep recession.
The CNN sums up well the general approach of all the flagship capitalist media outlets internationally:
“… the regime in Tehran remains in place and the war is widely seen to have exposed the limits of American power.”
Nukes
Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, is not taken up in the MOU. Iran accepts the condition not to acquire nuclear weapons but it refuses to abandon its right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.
Trump presents Iran’s agreement (in the MOU) to not possess a nuclear weapon as a great victory of his genius. Point 8 of the MOU states that
“…Iran reiterates that it will never produce nuclear weapons”.
However, this was already agreed by Iran in the deal that they had struck with Obama in 2015 (known as JCPOA – Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) where it was stated that,
“…under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire nuclear weapons”.
Actually, the language in the JCPOA is stronger than in the recent MOU.
Based on the JCPOA, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium only up to 3.67% which is very far from the 90% enrichment which is required for the construction of nuclear weapons. According to the JCPOA Iran’s nuclear facilities would be closely monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – as they were indeed.
Trump’s move during his first term was to demolish Obama’s deal, in 2018. This pushed Iran to go even deeper underground, in preparing for armed conflict and protecting (and producing) its missile and drone systems. It also went ahead with enriching uranium far beyond the 3.67% of the JCPOA, to 60%, which makes it possible to increase to the 90% necessary for nuclear weapons in a matter of weeks.
The US, together with Israel attacked Iran back in June 2025 in the 12-day war. Trump then declared the end of Iran’s nuclear programme – that it was destroyed by the US and Israel’s bombs and missiles. Eight months later (February 2026) he started another war aiming at destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities – the ones he had already demolished back in 2025. Today, by signing the Islamabad MOU, Iran is simply accepting not to have nuclear weapons as it always did. Trump can claim a great victory, but there is nothing of the sort.
On Monday 22.06.2026, Trump’s vice president, J.D. Vance stated that Iran has accepted the presence of the IAEA in Iran – another “great success” by Trump. But the IAEA was there anyway, until Trump forced Iran to throw them out in 2018.
In conclusion
US imperialism is clearly the loser in its confrontation with Iran. Netanyahu’s regime is left in a cold shower. Iran comes out strengthened as a regional power. The Gulf states, like Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar etc., who had based their defense on the US’s “guarantees”, have come to realise that the US was not able to “protect” them against military attacks from Iran. US bases in the region meant that the countries hosting them became targeted by Iranian drones and missiles, that the bases’ air defense systems could not stop.
Massive amounts of capital have been promised to Iran, which (if given) can be used by the regime not only to give the economy a push but to also enhance its military capabilities. The proxies of Iran, in Palestine (Hamas), Lebanon (Hezbollah), Yemen (Houthis) and other smaller forces in other countries in the region will continue to get economic and military assistance from Iran. Russia and China will also be strengthened (e.g., read CNN’s “China is counting its wins from the Iran war”) while their close ally in the region is strengthened.
There should be no expectations that a real and lasting peace could come any closer. It is not at all clear if all the conditions of the MOU will be satisfied. But even if they were they would not mean peace. The warring sides will still have their hand on the trigger. Although another major war between Iran and the US and Israel is not on the cards for the time being, attacks and clashes can continue. Peace in Lebanon and Palestine will remain a distant dream. Israel will use every opportunity and provocation possible, to attack and to undermine the MOU and the possible final agreement between Iran and the US.
The region is not more stable and not more peaceful after the war and after the Islamabad MOU. In many ways it more unstable. Capitalism-imperialism has no way of solving the national, religious, economic and strategic antagonisms in the region.
