US-Iran Peace Accord Set to Be Signed This Week — While Hopes for Peace Could Still Be Dashed, the Announcement Alone Sparked Celebrations, Backlash, and Political Strife on Both Sides
Senior officials from the United States and Iran are scheduled to travel to Switzerland this week to sign a framework authorizing "the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts," as stated by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. The official signing ceremony is set for Friday.
US President Donald Trump echoed Sharif's announcement over the weekend, stating that a deal to end the war had been reached. Iranian officials expressed cautious support but stopped short of fully endorsing all reported details.
Iran-US peace deal leaves many major issues unresolved
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
It is worth noting that Trump's previous expressions of optimism repeatedly ended in disappointment, and the latest peace proposal may also collapse before reaching the signing stage in Switzerland. Many of its alleged terms remain unclear and politically disputed, and even if Tehran and Washington confirm it on Friday, the framework reportedly leaves critical questions—including the dispute over Iran's nuclear program—to be addressed within 60 days following the signing ceremony.
**Conflicting narratives from the start**
US and Iranian sources have provided competing accounts of what the agreement actually includes. Iranian semi-official and allied media circulated what they described as a 14-point draft memorandum, encompassing an end to fighting across all fronts, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days, partial sanctions relief, access to frozen Iranian funds, and two months of follow-up negotiations focused on the nuclear issue and sanctions. These details have not been independently verified.
Iranian state television portrayed the announcement as a diplomatic triumph. However, Iranian hard-liners quickly attacked the deal, arguing that it surrenders leverage without securing sufficient concessions in return. Ultraconservative critics view the arrangement as an unacceptable retreat, while government supporters insist it maintains core red lines and prevents a broader catastrophe.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi recently urged media outlets not to speculate about the memorandum's contents while the process was still ongoing. Trump reposted Araqchi's message on social media and described it as "very positive," reinforcing the impression that both sides wanted to signal positive momentum without fully disclosing the final text.
**What do the US and Iran stand to gain?**
Babak Dorbeiki, a London-based political analyst and former official at Iran's Strategic Research Center, stated that the deal appears to offer each side some immediate tactical benefits while deferring the more difficult issues to a later stage.
Pakistan, US, Iran signal deal to end war close
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
"The main advantages for Iran are an end to the US naval blockade, short-term relief for oil sales, and a written American statement respecting Iranian sovereignty," he told DW.
Dorbeiki said Tehran may also view the arrangement as a way for the regime to preserve domestic legitimacy by demonstrating it did not capitulate under pressure. However, he also highlighted Iran's pain points. The version of the deal presented by the Americans seems to imply a far stricter outcome on the nuclear dispute, including the removal of enriched material and long-term monitoring, while Iranian messaging suggests enrichment itself may survive in some form. Dorbeiki noted that these two narratives do not align easily.
For Washington, Dorbeiki said, the gains are different. A ceasefire would end a costly military operation, reduce pressure on global energy markets, and potentially secure more on the nuclear issue than a narrower arms-control framework would have achieved. However, he also cautioned that the US still faces verification challenges, internal political divisions, and resistance from pro-Israel forces unhappy with any arrangement that leaves Iran's broader regional posture unchanged.
**Israel is not a party, but it could shape the outcome**
One of the clearest limitations of the agreement is that Israel is not formally a party to it, even though it is deeply affected by the deal. This matters because some of the most sensitive regional conflicts, particularly in Lebanon, depend heavily on Israel's actions.
Dorbeiki described this as one of the deal's structural weaknesses. In his view, Washington may be prepared to accept a framework that reduces immediate risk and restores maritime stability, while Israel may continue pursuing unilateral operations in Gaza, Lebanon, or Syria if it believes the agreement does not adequately address its concerns.
Middle East fears Iran-Israel fighting could become new norm
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
That possibility has also fueled criticism inside Iran. The Guardian reported that Iranian hard-liners have condemned the agreement as a humiliating compromise, as they believe it does not guarantee compensation, comprehensive sanctions relief, or lasting security gains for Tehran.
**Relief abroad, anger at home**
The announcement drew supportive reactions from world leaders, including UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
Senior Israeli officials were far less enthusiastic. Israel's National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir posted that "Trump's agreement does not bind us" and that Israel must not compromise on "anything less than the dismantling of Hezbollah" or withdraw from "any territory that our fighters have captured and cleared of terror infrastructure."
This displeasure from senior Israeli circles is likely to be amplified by Israel's political allies within the US. Prominent pro-war commentators like Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro have already questioned the peace deal, with Shapiro denouncing the scheduled signing ceremony in Switzerland as a "horrible idea" and a "gigantic photo op" for the Iranian regime. Their criticism, however, has been tempered by the fact that details of the framework remain unverified, with both commentators calling on the White House to release the full text.
But some analysts believe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has little choice but to comply.
Initial US-Iran deal 'should not be overestimated'
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
"What Donald Trump wants, from an Israeli prime minister, he is going to get," Aaron David Miller from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told DW. Miller noted that Netanyahu was up for reelection this fall and needed Trump's "active support." "Netanyahu will do anything Trump wants him to do," he said.
**A 'small-for-small' understanding**
Reza Alijani, a Paris-based political analyst originally from Iran, warned that the agreement should primarily be understood as a limited memorandum, not a comprehensive settlement. "This is a small-for-small understanding," he told DW.
He said Tehran appears to have accepted the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a return, at least in principle, to prewar shipping conditions, while the United States seems ready to ease the naval blockade. That, he argued, is the immediate cash-value exchange at the center of the understanding. Everything more ambitious has effectively been pushed into the next 60 days.
Alijani also pointed to Lebanon as one of the most revealing aspects of the arrangement. In his view, Tehran seems to have reacted late and cautiously to continued Israeli strikes there, suggesting that Iran may already have decided to set aside part of that dispute to secure a broader de-escalation. He added that some of the more ambitious Iranian demands, including monetary compensation, a full US military withdrawal from the region, or taxation of ships passing through Hormuz, now appear either greatly softened or effectively dropped from the framework. The analyst said the question of guarantees remains very important, and the practical path to implementation is still far from clear.
**Landmark peace deal, or just a break in fighting?**
The most important gain may be a positive change in the political atmosphere. The ceasefire language, the planned signing ceremony, and the public endorsements from Pakistan and Trump all suggest a major step forward. However, the competing narratives over sanctions, Iran's nuclear program, Lebanon, the Strait of Hormuz, and enforcement mechanisms show that the deal may be easier to announce than to implement.
The agreement may be effective enough to stop the fighting—for now. Whether it satisfies the core demands of all sides, or simply postpones the next round of confrontation, will likely be decided only in the 60 days following Friday's summit in Switzerland.
Edited by: Darko Janjevic
Your feedback