The US-Iran military conflict that began on February 28, 2026, lasted only two months and concluded with the ceasefire on April 8. However, the truly decisive move came with the 14-article memorandum of understanding expected to be signed in Geneva on June 19. The text, leaked by Bloomberg and Al Arabiya, has been interpreted in international public opinion as “Iran’s diplomatic victory.” The memorandum clearly demonstrates that the United States, which initiated the war, failed to achieve any of its initial objectives and, on the contrary, recognized Iran as a legitimate party at the negotiating table. The US administration had embarked on the conflict with maximalist demands, including regime change and the complete cessation of Iran’s nuclear program, yet returned from the table empty-handed. Israel, meanwhile, was excluded from the process and forced to reconsider its defense doctrine in the face of its closest ally engaging in direct negotiations with Tehran.
Strategic Gains Secured for Iran by the Memorandum
The fourteen articles constitute a structure that preserves nearly all of Iran’s red lines. The first article, while stipulating the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, directly includes the Lebanese front, thereby implicitly recognizing Hezbollah’s legitimacy. This signifies that Iran’s influence over regional proxy actors has gained international recognition. The second article, emphasizing the principle of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, formalized the US abandonment of the regime change objective it had raised at the outset of the war. Through this article, Tehran neutralized the greatest threat to its regime security.
Regarding the nuclear file, closed-door protocols are estimated to provide for enrichment levels fixed at 3.67 percent and the dilution of existing stockpiles above 20 percent. Yet before the war, the US had demanded the complete halt of Iran’s nuclear activities. In its current form, the memorandum effectively recognizes Iran’s right to enrichment and permits it to maintain uranium stockpiles at critical levels. More significantly, the ballistic missile program and regional proxy networks have been excluded from the memorandum’s scope. Iran has not been compelled to relinquish either its conventional missile capacity or its military support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. This omission has allowed Iran to retain its most important strategic instruments.
On the economic front, Iran has gained significant potential to increase crude oil exports, accompanied by the gradual lifting of sanctions and signals of reintegration into the SWIFT system. Renewed access to international energy markets presents a critical opportunity for revitalizing Tehran’s long-damaged economy. Furthermore, the diplomatic legitimacy conferred upon Iran by the memorandum has strengthened Tehran’s hand in the normalization process with Riyadh and provided a psychological advantage over Saudi Arabia. Despite objections from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps regarding articles on defense industry restrictions, senior regime officials have characterized the text as a “historic victory.”
America’s Strategic Losses and Credibility Crisis
The United States had set three primary objectives at the war’s outset: to permanently halt Iran’s nuclear program, to lay the groundwork for regime change, and to provide deterrent assurance to its regional allies. The 14-article memorandum reveals that none of these objectives were achieved. The US made concessions on the nuclear file, officially abandoned the regime change objective, and accepted Iran as an equal counterpart at the negotiating table. This situation has dealt a serious blow to America’s deterrent capability in the Middle East.
Donald Trump’s harsh rhetoric during the war and his promises to “bring Iran to its knees” have been rendered entirely meaningless by the memorandum. Trump has been sidelined from the process, and his political sphere of influence has contracted. Deprived of a success story to employ in his election campaigns, Trump has been reduced to criticizing the agreement as “weak.” Yet this criticism amounts to an implicit admission regarding the outcome of the war his own administration initiated. The Republican Party’s decision to distance Trump from campaign materials in the midterm elections is a concrete indicator of how severely confidence in his leadership has eroded.
More critically, America’s credibility has been seriously damaged among regional actors, particularly its Gulf allies. This situation, defined in alliance theory as “commitment uncertainty,” has caused ruptures in small states’ dependency strategies toward great powers. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have observed that America’s resolve against Iran has become questionable and have felt the need to pursue multi-directional balancing policies. Through the memorandum, the US has lost its most important strategic advantage in the Middle East: the element of unconditional ally assurance.
Israel’s Deterrence Crisis and Strategic Isolation
For Israel, the memorandum has revived the “standing alone” discourse that constitutes the foundational philosophy of the state. The United States’ direct engagement with Iran at the negotiating table has profoundly shaken Israel’s confidence in its closest ally. The Netanyahu government has lost the foreign policy legitimacy it had constructed over many years through its personal dialogue with Trump. Internal Likud Party polls indicate that the Trump factor is no longer a positive element of sympathy but has come to be coded as a risk premium among undecided voters. Netanyahu has been compelled to abandon the emphasis on “special relations with America” in his campaign language and pivot toward the concepts of “domestic defense industry” and “technological independence.”
The memorandum’s exclusion of the missile program directly threatens Israel’s military superiority on its northern front. Hezbollah’s precision-guided missile inventory and Iran’s military presence in Syria have not been included among the agreement’s security guarantees. In Knesset discussions, opposition leader Yair Lapid has accused Netanyahu of strategic intelligence failure, while former defense ministers have stated that the agreement significantly weakens Israel’s military superiority. Former intelligence chiefs of the Israel Defense Forces have warned that the diplomatic breathing space granted to Iran by the memorandum will further deepen Tehran’s military presence in Syria and Lebanon.
The failure of the unconditional support Netanyahu expected from the US during the war to materialize, and the disregard for Israel’s views in the memorandum process, indicate a historic rupture in strategic alignment between the two countries. Israel has been forced to understand that the US will no longer prioritize its interests in the Iran file. This situation compels Israel to redefine its defense doctrine and opens the door to new alliance pursuits in the region.
The New Map of the Tripartite Balance: Iran’s Rise
The emerging geopolitical picture reveals a balance shift in which Iran is the clear victor. Iran has gained legitimacy on the nuclear file, achieved relief from economic sanctions, preserved its regional proxy networks, and attained equal counterpart status in the international arena. The US has failed to achieve its war objectives, lost its allied credibility, and weakened its regional deterrence. Israel has found itself abandoned by its closest ally, its security paradigm deeply shaken, and its capacity to maintain military superiority called into question.
Within the framework of game theory, the payoffs for the actors become clear: Iran has achieved a clearly positive gain in a zero-sum approach. America’s loss is not limited to diplomatic and military domains; it also entails a crisis of predictability and reliability as a global superpower. Israel’s loss is existential in dimension, for the state’s security architecture was built upon the foundation of unconditional US support, and it has been forced to confront the reality that this support is no longer guaranteed.
Conclusion
The 14-article Geneva memorandum marks the beginning of a new era in the Middle East, and the victor of this era is clearly Iran. Tehran, having risen from its most disadvantaged position at the war’s outset, has achieved diplomatic, economic, and strategic gains. The US has emerged empty-handed from a process it entered with maximalist objectives, its reputation damaged and its credibility among allies severely eroded. Israel has found itself in historic isolation, its deterrent capability called into question, and compelled to reconstruct its security paradigm. The true loser is the old Middle Eastern order founded upon unilateral American guarantee. Iran’s rise will transform all regional balances and, in the coming years, will trigger new alliance pursuits across a geography stretching from the Gulf to the Mediterranean. The strategic losses suffered by the US and Israel appear permanent, and no diplomatic or military maneuver capable of compensating for these losses is yet visible on the horizon.
References
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. McGraw-Hill.
Putnam, R. D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42(3), 427-460.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W.W. Norton.
International Crisis Group (ICG). (2024). Middle East Report: The New US-Iran Framework and Regional Security. Brussels.
Knesset Research and Information Center. (2024). Analysis of the 14-Article Understanding: Implications for Israel’s National Security. Jerusalem.
Bloomberg News. (2026, June 19). US-Iran Draft Memorandum Surfaces Ahead of Geneva Signing. Bloomberg.
Al Arabiya News. (2026, June 19). Leaked document reveals 14-point US-Iran understanding. Al Arabiya.
Sefa Yürükel
Danish ethnographer and social anthropologist (MA)
Aarhus University, 1997
Independent Researcher
Fields of Research: International Politics, Public International Law, Geopolitics, Sociology, Psychology, Cultural Studies, Systems and Structures.
Bir yanıt yazın