WAS THE WAR MEANINGFUL?… By Andreas Andrianopoulos
The US-Iran agreement's success hinges on whether it extracts meaningful concessions from Tehran or merely returns both nations to pre-war positions at the cost of thousands of lives.
If the US–Iran agreement is ultimately signed roughly as described today (ceasefire, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, return to negotiations on the nuclear program, and some form of economic relief), then three basic interpretations emerge. On the one hand, there’s the pro-government American/Israeli interpretation. That is, the war achieved exactly what it wanted. It forced Tehran to negotiate from a weaker position. It caused serious damage to missile, military, and possibly nuclear infrastructure. It showed that the US and Israel are willing to use military force.
It created a deterrent precedent for the future. By this logic, the war was not a failure but a tool of coercion for a better deal.
If, however, on the other hand, the final agreement looks very much like what was being discussed before the war broke out, then many will ask: “Why did it take thousands of deaths, enormous economic cost, and global energy disruption to end up roughly where we already were?” Indeed, several analysts point out that negotiations were already underway before hostilities began and that an agreement was considered feasible. From this perspective, the war looks more like a failure of diplomacy than a necessary step.
If the real objective was broader than the nuclear issue, then a simple agreement does not necessarily mean the war was “pointless.” The critical question lies in the details of what was agreed upon. The historical judgment will depend, that is, on the content of the final agreement. If Iran accepts substantial restrictions it didn’t accept before, supporters of the war will say that “the pressure worked.” If Iran retains most of its nuclear capabilities, receives economic concessions, and returns roughly to the pre-war regime—with much more extreme representatives—then critics will argue that the war destroyed much without fundamentally changing anything.
Based on what has been leaked so far, the second critique is already being heard quite loudly. Many are wondering whether the final agreement differs enough from what could have been achieved through negotiation before the war broke out. The verdict of the American people will become clear in the upcoming midterm elections. Which will also mark the next developments in the US. Unless the American people themselves have been completely transformed. Which is quite likely…
