The Iran war, which began on February 28 with Israeli and US attacks, has been under a fragile ceasefire since April 8. A framework agreement aimed at ending the conflict is expected to be signed in Switzerland on Friday.
However, as fighting on the ground decreases, the political and diplomatic repercussions of the war are intensifying. The process focuses not only on who gained the upper hand on the battlefield but also on which side has become more advantageous at the negotiating table.
Iran Paid a Heavy Price Militarily
During the five-week offensive, much of Iran’s air defense systems, a significant portion of its missile stockpiles, launch platforms, senior military command structures, and key nuclear facilities were damaged. The military picture represents a severe attrition for Iran.
Nevertheless, Iran’s ability to withstand the joint US-Israeli pressure in some regional capitals is seen as a result in itself. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Garibabadi stated that his country achieved "major victories" in the war and that the agreement came to the table more due to "military successes" than diplomacy.
The Strait of Hormuz Becomes a New Bargaining Tool
Iran transformed the Strait of Hormuz from a theoretical threat into a tangible pressure instrument. It did not completely close the strait, but the disruptions demonstrated that it could credibly threaten to do so.
Now, Washington appears to be using sanctions relief as a bargaining chip to reopen a passage that was never fully closed. This reveals that the agreement creates an economic and strategic negotiation space rather than a purely military one.
Framework on Nuclear Issue, Uncertainty in Details
The expected framework agreement includes Iran reaffirming that it is not pursuing nuclear weapons. However, details regarding enriched uranium stockpiles and a possible pause in enrichment are deferred to a more comprehensive second agreement.
There is no full consensus yet; the draft text on the table serves as a framework that lays the groundwork for negotiations on topics like enriched uranium stockpiles and enrichment suspension. It is also noted that Iran has previously tended to prolong such talks.
Sanctions Relief Could Strengthen Iran Domestically
Potential sanctions relief could also bolster the Tehran administration’s position domestically. Such a step might provide more resources for military programs and proxy networks, although the agreement text reportedly does not address ballistic missiles, support for armed groups, or the regime’s power structure.
This situation has led to interpretations that the final agreement might be softer than what diplomacy could have achieved before the war. Even if an agreement is reached, its durability will depend on subsequent negotiations.
Expectations Diverge Between Washington and Tel Aviv
The Trump administration initially hoped for a rapid regime collapse when entering the conflict, but when this did not occur, the priority shifted to ending the war. Iran believes Washington will not immediately return to military intervention as the November midterm elections approach.
Israel, however, is reportedly deeply disappointed with the outcome. While Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shared aligned goals at the war’s outset, their positions diverged once Washington decided to end the conflict.
Claims that Lebanon was included in the ceasefire and that Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah targets were limited are seen as additional gains for Iran. Conversely, Israel appears to believe the agreement does not sufficiently restrict Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities.
The emerging picture resembles a temporary pause in a much longer struggle rather than a completed peace agreement. Each side may present this as a victory from its perspective; the real test will be whether future talks produce binding and verifiable limitations.
