With a sweep of his pen in France’s historic Palace of Versailles on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump added his distinctive signature to what may become one of the most consequential documents for the future of the Middle East.
Millions of people across the region will be hoping that the signatures on the 14-point interim agreement (Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has also signed) will draw a line under the US-Israel-Iran war. This is a conflict that has cost thousands of lives, ruined civilian infrastructure, spread violence across several Arab countries and disrupted global trade.
The sense of hope is justified; there are good reasons to believe that key sections of this memorandum of understanding could pave the way to some stability. Paragraph five, for example, which envisages the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, may transform the waterway from being an international flashpoint into an area of shared responsibility, making Iran and its Gulf neighbours stakeholders in its secure and rules-based operation.
But hope should also be tempered by caution. There is much in the document that remains unclear. The text outlines sanctions relief for Iran, as well as the unfreezing of assets and a $300 billion reconstruction fund. What mechanism will emerge to prevent Tehran from using those resources to remilitarise is not included in the text. Nor is there any mention of reparations that should be paid by Iran to its Arab neighbours whom Tehran struck repeatedly over more than 100 days of war.
There is also the presence of several spoilers. Although Wednesday’s MoU signalled an end to military operations involving the US and Iran, and their allies, Israel continues on the warpath in Lebanon, launching more strikes on the south of the country on the same day Mr Trump put pen to paper in Versailles. Lebanese civilians remain caught between an Israeli leadership bereft of strategies that do not involve force and the militants of Iran-backed Hezbollah who are waging war in their name but without a mandate. In addition, it is not clear if Iran’s leadership is speaking with one voice; the presence of regime ultras in the form of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is an unnerving one for many of their neighbours and countries from Sweden to Argentina who have suffered from their nefarious acts.
There is no doubt that an end to the waves of unjustified drone and missile attacks on the Gulf countries is welcome. Iranian civilians have also suffered, and no one wants to see a repeat of abominable scenes such as the February 28 strike on a school in Minab that killed more than 175 children and teachers. What this document does is establish a framework for progress. It is not “peace in our time” – to borrow the ill-fated 1938 phrase of UK prime minister Neville Chamberlain. But it is a step in the right direction.
