‘Lots of things can still go wrong’ with US-Iran deal to end the war

The United States and Iran have reached an agreement intended to de-escalate their longstanding tensions, yet senior diplomatic observers remain cautious about the arrangement's durability and ultimate effectiveness. This nascent accord represents not a conclusive settlement but rather an initial framework that both parties have committed to exploring, with significant implementation challenges lying ahead. The agreement emerged from months of indirect negotiations conducted through intermediaries, reflecting the deep mutual distrust between Washington and Tehran that has characterized their relationship since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The accord's fragility stems from its foundational nature, as it establishes principles and pathways for engagement rather than codifying permanent resolutions to the multifaceted disputes that have defined US-Iran relations for decades.

The historical antagonism between these two nations provides essential context for understanding why observers treat the current agreement with measured optimism rather than confidence. Following the Iranian Revolution's rupture of diplomatic relations, the United States and Iran have engaged in proxy conflicts across the Middle East, supported opposing sides in regional disputes, and maintained comprehensive economic sanctions regimes targeting Iranian industries and financial sectors. Previous diplomatic initiatives, most notably the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action negotiated in 2015, collapsed when the Trump administration withdrew unilaterally in 2018, subsequently reimposing punitive sanctions that further isolated Tehran. This cycle of agreement and withdrawal has created profound skepticism within both governments about whether the other party will honor commitments or maintain political will across leadership transitions. The current moment, following years of heightened tensions marked by military confrontations and assassination campaigns, carries the weight of this failed history, making trust-building exercises extraordinarily difficult even when both sides publicly signal commitment to dialogue.

The agreement establishes mechanisms for dialogue and confidence-building rather than substantive concessions on either side's core interests. Both nations have committed to maintaining communication channels and establishing working groups to address specific grievances, though the accord notably lacks binding enforcement provisions or automatic penalties for violations. The arrangement includes no timeline for moving beyond preliminary discussions toward comprehensive settlements on nuclear matters, regional proxy activities, or sanctions relief. Neither party has agreed to immediate reciprocal measures, meaning Iran has not received the sanctions removal it seeks while the United States has not achieved the strategic concessions regarding nuclear development or regional influence that constitute its primary objectives. The framework's deliberately incremental structure reflects negotiators' assessment that attempting to resolve all disputes simultaneously would trigger collapse of the entire initiative, yet this approach also means that progress depends entirely on both parties maintaining political commitment despite domestic pressures and competing priorities.

For international observers and global markets, this agreement's implications manifest in concrete economic and security dimensions across the Middle East. A collapse of this nascent process would likely trigger renewed military confrontation, potentially destabilizing critical energy supply routes through the Persian Gulf and disrupting global oil markets that already face supply constraints from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The agreement's success or failure will directly influence Iran's capacity to export petroleum, affecting energy prices worldwide and impacting economic growth forecasts across multiple regions. Additionally, the accord's durability affects Western efforts to maintain a unified approach toward Iranian nuclear proliferation concerns, as fragmentation among major powers would undermine international pressure mechanisms that have historically constrained Tehran's weapons programs. For countries throughout the Middle East, renewed US-Iran escalation would necessitate choosing between competing powers and increase regional military expenditures devoted to deterrence rather than development initiatives.

This agreement reveals a broader pattern evident across contemporary international relations: the persistent difficulty of creating stable settlements in ideologically fractured relationships where deep historical grievances complicate trust-building. The framework mirrors similar ongoing processes in other geopolitical hotspots where initial agreements represent psychological breakthroughs rather than substantive resolutions, including various Israeli-Palestinian arrangements and Ukraine-Russia negotiations. The incremental approach reflects evolved diplomatic theory suggesting that comprehensive settlements often prove impossible when fundamental interests remain opposed, yet gradual confidence-building can occasionally shift political calculations over extended timeframes. However, this strategy's success rate remains uncertain, as numerous historical precedents demonstrate that preliminary agreements frequently collapse when initial momentum dissipates or when domestic political constituencies mobilize against continued engagement. The agreement's current trajectory illuminates how contemporary diplomacy operates in environments where verification mechanisms are limited, enforcement authority remains contested, and both parties retain unilateral capacity to withdraw.

Readers and policymakers should monitor specific developments throughout 2024 and 2025 that will indicate whether this agreement represents genuine de-escalation or merely temporary respite. The established working groups require quarterly meetings with documented progress assessments, providing measurable indicators of whether meaningful discussions are occurring or stalling amid procedural disputes. The continuation of this process through the 2024 US presidential election cycle will prove particularly revealing, as political transitions in Washington have historically disrupted Iran negotiations, and electoral pressures may incentivize withdrawals to demonstrate strength to domestic constituencies. International organizations including the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency should provide independent assessments of compliance and implementation progress rather than relying on self-reporting from either party. Observers should also track whether secondary sanctions targeting Iranian financial institutions and commercial partnerships show signs of relaxation, as actual sanctions relief constitutes the practical validation of commitment that will determine whether Iranian negotiators maintain political capital to continue dialogue despite domestic hardliners' criticism.