هل تصمد الصفقة؟

Washington and Tehran succeeded in reaching the moment of signing, but reaching an agreement does not necessarily mean achieving peace, and the understanding between the two adversaries does not necessarily imply acceptance by others.

Every major agreement or settlement in the region is born with its fractures, creating at the same moment two fronts: forces that invest in its success and parties that see its resilience as a threat to their strategic existence. Often, the real danger to the agreement does not come from the parties that signed it, but from those that did not.

Here, the questions that will follow the signing seem more important than the signing itself: Who will take the initiative to test the limits of the agreement? Who will consider it a threat to their strategic interests? Who has the ability to turn a limited security incident, a clash, or a disagreement over the interpretation of one of its clauses into a spark that brings the region back to square one?

Gaps on Day One

From the moment the memorandum of understanding comes into effect, three fundamental tests may determine its fate. The problem lies not in what the two parties agreed upon, but in how to translate that on the ground, where political calculations intersect with field realities: First, the dilemma of mutual monitoring and verification. While Washington markets the understanding domestically as a "strict testing tool" for Tehran's intentions, it is practically difficult to separate technical commitments in closed rooms from the movements of factions on the front lines of the map. Second, the crisis of interpreting the concept of "de-escalation," where the U.S. administration reads it as a comprehensive stagnation and stability of waterways, while Iran sees it as an implicit acknowledgment of its regional influence and an opportunity for field repositioning and changing the rules of engagement. Third, the complex interdependence between the economic and security tracks; any American hesitation in practically translating the lifting of sanctions due to congressional complexities will immediately be met with a swift Iranian retreat from technical commitments.

The 60-Day Test

The challenges of the memorandum are not limited to its field implementation, as the signing does not close the door to negotiation but rather opens it wide. The memorandum establishes a negotiation track extending for 60 days, which is supposed to address the most sensitive and complex files, from monitoring and verification mechanisms to long-term economic and security arrangements. Here lies a fundamental paradox: the two parties succeeded in agreeing on a general framework, but they have not yet achieved complete consensus on its details. Therefore, the coming weeks may turn into a negotiation arena no less difficult than the months that preceded them, especially if disagreements arise over the interpretation of commitments, the timing of their implementation, or the scale of mutual gains.

Resilience Stakes

Despite the level of doubts, one cannot ignore the existence of factors that may help this understanding to endure. This is not a phase where both parties seek to score political points, but rather a phase where each needs stability more than escalation.

Washington is in dire need of freezing the explosive fronts in the Middle East to pass its internal obligations and focus on other international strategic conflicts, and it will not easily allow any regional party to undermine this diplomatic achievement.

For its part, Tehran, governed by economic calculations, understands that maintaining the gains and financial flows resulting from this understanding requires showing high pragmatism and a real ability to regulate the overall rhythm of the region to prevent any uncalculated field confrontations that could completely derail the memorandum.

With these motives for de-escalation, fears of fractures remain strong, centered around the desire and ability of parties outside the agreement rooms to test its limits along the geographical contact lines:

Israel and Testing the Limits of Understanding

Tel Aviv appears to be the most eager and ready party for immediate action, seeing the signing of the memorandum as a danger that grants Iran regional legitimacy and vast sums of money that will flow to enhance its military structure on its borders without a fundamental dismantling of its technical capabilities.

Therefore, Israel may not wait long to see the results; the more it feels that the understanding grants Tehran a wider margin for movement, the greater the chances of returning to traditional pressure tools, from security operations to cyberattacks, up to attempts to push both parties toward a confrontation that reshuffles the cards.

Can Tehran Control Its Allies?

On the other side, a question arises about Tehran's willingness or ability to impose complete and absolute discipline on its network of allies. Iran may try to maintain clean and committed diplomatic channels with Washington while leaving certain factions in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen a margin of movement to protect their self-interests and maintain their field presence, which will put the credibility of its commitment to the test and end the effects of economic de-escalation.

If today (Friday) is the day of signing, the following weeks will be the days of real testing with live ammunition along the regional map. Between betting on Washington and Tehran's need for stability and avoiding total war, and the possibilities of preemptive Israeli strikes or gray maneuvers by proxies, the scene remains fully open to both parallel scenarios. The next few weeks will have the final word in determining whether we are facing a new regional balance that redraws the area or merely a temporary breather awaiting a more violent storm.