US and Iran: how secure is the deal?
Details of the framework agreement to end the war, which the US and Iran intend to sign in Geneva on Friday, have not yet been made public. The two sides have presented slightly different versions of the content. There are open questions regarding the passage of ships through the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's nuclear programme and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon. The press sees numerous pitfalls.
Only losers
No one can really be satisfied with the outcome of this war, says Jyllands-Posten:
“The war has shown that while the US still possesses an impressive military arsenal, it is increasingly divided and at a loss when it comes to its global role. ... Nor can the Gulf states or Israel, which will continue to be threatened by an unpredictable and vindictive Tehran, be truly satisfied with the emerging outcome. As for Europe's role, the war has made clear that despite their geographical proximity and energy dependence on the Middle East, Europeans remain virtually irrelevant when the major global powers flex their muscles in the region.”
Europe must take the initiative now
Europe can and must take action now, argues La Repubblica:
“When all is said and done, only the Europeans can act swiftly to cement the fragile compromise regarding the Strait of Hormuz. They should deploy a naval mission to clear the strait of mines and ensure the free traffic on which a substantial proportion of their crude oil supplies depend. Furthermore, thanks to Trump's participation in the G7 summit in Evian, this could provide an opportunity to restore a minimum level of agreement with Washington and thus avert the collapse of Nato at its July summit in Turkey.”
Nuclear programme out of control
Phileleftheros is concerned at the many uncertainties still surrounding Iran's nuclear programme:
“What will happen to the stockpiles of enriched uranium? Will they be removed? Will they be diluted? Will they remain in Iran? What will happen to the facilities and the centrifuges? What will the inspection arrangements look like? What enforcement mechanisms will be in place in the event of violations? There are no clear answers to these questions yet. From Israel's perspective, this is precisely where the problem lies. Israel is not so much concerned with declarations as with capabilities. For years its fundamental position has been that what matters is not what Tehran declares, but what it is capable of doing should it decide to change course or deceive the international community again.”
Sowing discord among allies
Lebanon's security is a key sticking point in the agreement between the US and Iran, notes Hospodářské noviny:
“Tehran insists that the Americans must force the Israelis to cease their attacks on Lebanon. However the Jewish state refuses to do so, and this threatens to widen the rift between President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This skilful move by the Iranian diplomats has sown discord among the allies while at the same time protecting the Lebanese Hezbollah movement, which Tehran helped to establish.”
Shaking off the sanctions' shackles
Iran is celebrating one of the greatest victories in its history, writes the Stuttgarter Zeitung:
“Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz was open to all ships – now this strategically important strait is likely to remain under Iranian control permanently. There will be no talks about restrictions on Iran's missile programme or an end to Iranian support for groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon. Plus the Iranian regime will receive substantial funds from oil exports and previously frozen foreign assets. ... A country with 90 million people, vast oil and gas reserves and a still-substantial missile arsenal is shaking off the shackles of international sanctions.”
Too soon to celebrate
Dagens Nyheter sees little substance:
“Before the world starts rejoicing that a devastating war has come to an end, we should take a close look at exactly what kind of agreement is actually on the table. It is not a peace treaty. It is an extension of a ceasefire that neither the US, nor Iran, nor Israel has honoured. ... It is a memorandum of understanding, a declaration of intent that has not yet been signed. According to Trump, what may now happen is that the Strait of Hormuz will be reopened. It was open before 28 February, when the US and Israel started the war.”
Tough to implement
Naftemporiki also remains sceptical:
“A ceasefire that brings lasting security to the Gulf would be the ideal scenario for the future; but believing it will happen requires a great deal of optimism. The 60-day negotiation period allocated to implementing the agreement is too short for the technical measures reportedly planned regarding Iran's highly enriched uranium. Although Iran has lost regional power due to military losses and the weakening of its allies, it has gained strategic power through its control of the Strait of Hormuz – a result of this war.”
This is not what victory looks like
Jutarnji list sees this as a clear defeat for the US:
“As Donald Trump announces yet another 'great deal' with Iran which he is trying to cast as a US victory, we have to seriously start asking whether the 80-year-old US president is a pathological liar or simply crazy. ... Thousands of people have lost their lives, mainly in Iran and Lebanon, while global energy prices have soared. The result: the military-theocratic regime in Tehran has further consolidated its power, Iran is blackmailing the surrounding Arab countries and much of the rest of the world, and no one is talking about the country's democratisation anymore. ... If this is supposed to be a victory as the US President says, what would a defeat look like?”
Tehran will cast this as a big win
The Iranian regime is emerging from the conflict in a stronger position, Correio da Manhã notes:
“The agreement will focus on 14 points aimed at ending the conflict, with the main emphasis on opening the Strait of Hormuz, releasing Iran's frozen financial assets and easing the sanctions imposed on Tehran. If this agenda is followed, it clearly shows that the situation is far more advantageous for Iran than for Trump. Aware of this advantageous position, Tehran has announced the funeral of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. ... This funeral will certainly be used to proclaim the regime's victory.”
Israel won't be forced into a deal
La Stampa fears Israel will try to prevent a ceasefire:
“For Israel, this agreement was already a disappointment: it neither guarantees the destruction of Iran's nuclear and missile programmes, nor does it neutralise Hezbollah, nor does it dismantle Tehran's regional axis. It puts the war on hold without granting Netanyahu the strategic victory he continues to claim for himself. The Israeli attack on Beirut is therefore not merely a reaction to Hezbollah. It strikes at the heart of the agreement. It tests the US's ability to rein Israel in. And it signals to Iran that while Washington may promise a ceasefire, it cannot necessarily impose it on its most important ally.”