A historic agreement between the United States and Iran — the first deal signed by leaders of both nations since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979 — is drawing sharply divided reactions across the Middle East.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian signed the interim accord on Wednesday, bringing a formal end to a three-month war. Trump chose the Palace of Versailles, on the sidelines of the G7 summit, as the location to formalize the agreement — a venue widely interpreted as symbolizing a reshaping of the international order following the conflict.
The 14-point deal extends an existing ceasefire by 60 days, including in Lebanon, to allow time for negotiations toward a permanent settlement and to address unresolved issues including Iran’s nuclear program.
Supporters are calling it a transformational moment. Lebanese commentator Sarkis Naoum described it as nothing short of a grand bargain. “For Washington and Tehran, this is a grand bargain — the deal of the century, with no turning back,” he said. “The probability of success outweighs the risk of failure. Iran cannot endure further economic pain under sanctions, and Trump has no incentive to start a new war.”
But for Iran’s adversaries — including Israel, Gulf states, and factions in Lebanon — the agreement looks far more troubling. Israeli analyst Danny Citrinowicz called it a strategic “catastrophe,” arguing that what had been framed as a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to weaken or even bring down the Islamic Republic has instead resulted in American recognition of Iran’s government.
“We went to topple the regime with U.S. backing and ended with Washington effectively giving legitimacy and strengthening the same regime we wanted to bring down,” said Citrinowicz, a senior Iran researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.
He contends the deal delivers none of Israel’s core demands: there are no restrictions placed on Iran’s missile program or its regional proxy forces, and no clear roadmap for dismantling its nuclear facilities. Even Israel’s military operations in Lebanon have been constrained by the ceasefire framework, which was included at Iran’s insistence.
Citrinowicz warned that Iran has gained significant room to maneuver, and that the deal risks cementing its regional position while leaving Israel increasingly isolated. “Everything is bad,” he said bluntly. “And it’s only going to get worse.”
If the agreement holds, Iran appears to come out ahead: the war ends, sanctions relief is phased in, oil exports resume, and massive reconstruction funding becomes possible — all alongside an implicit acceptance of Iran’s political system by the West.
The United States and Israel launched the war on February 28, beginning with the assassination of 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other senior Iranian figures in the opening days of the conflict. The war escalated rapidly, killing more than 7,000 people — mostly in Iran and Lebanon — while driving up global energy prices and raising fears of a food crisis in developing nations.
In Lebanon, the deal is seen as tilting the balance toward Iran, reinforcing the role of Tehran-backed Hezbollah and drawing the country into a broader U.S.-Iran diplomatic framework while sidelining direct talks between Beirut and Israel.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun cautioned last week that Iran does not have the authority to negotiate on Lebanon’s behalf on matters such as the ceasefire terms and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanese territory.
However, sources close to Hezbollah argue the opposite — that the U.S.-Iran track actually strengthens Lebanon’s standing by elevating its situation into a higher-level negotiation, with both Washington and Tehran able to pressure their respective allies toward a settlement.
Concern is running highest in the Gulf, where Iranian attacks during the conflict rattled confidence in long-standing security arrangements. Gulf states have emerged as the war’s biggest losers — left on the sidelines as decisions reshaped their security environment, and now facing the consequences.
Gulf sources say the deal is already changing strategic calculations in the region: eroding trust in U.S. security guarantees, entrenching Iran as a permanent regional force, and pushing countries toward accommodation rather than confrontation with Tehran.
Iran expert Alex Vatanka offered a different perspective, arguing the deal represents the least damaging outcome available after years of failed attempts to pressure Iran through force. “They tried to take Iran down militarily. They couldn’t. The alternative would have been catastrophic — a wider war could have devastated the Gulf for decades,” said Vatanka, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington.
He cautioned that the real challenges are still ahead — in carrying out the terms of the deal, resolving the nuclear question, and managing the regional fallout. “It’s big, but it’s not the end of it. It’s just the beginning,” he said.
Some analysts point to Israel as the most unpredictable factor going forward. While few believe Israel would directly derail a process backed by Trump, risks remain — particularly in Lebanon. “Israel has been isolated, after this war, both in the region and in the world,” said one Iranian official, who asked not to be identified.
A second Iranian official added: “Iran got what it wanted… We did not abandon our friends, such as Hezbollah, rather, we were even prepared to go to the extent of walking away from the table and returning to war because of them.”
