The U.S.-Iran deal: What has changed and what does this mean for the region?

War is a perilous political act aimed at shifting the balance of power. What balance did the United States seek to impose when it launched its war against Iran, and what did it achieve? And what does this mean for Palestine and the region?

What were the objectives of the aggression?

The U.S. administration did not wage the war because of Trump’s unique personality; politicians do have a margin of freedom, but it is limited by the political agenda they have agreed to pursue in the interest of the organized social groups that support them. Nor was it to divert attention from the Epstein case, especially given the limited influence of public opinion in the reality of the capitalist United States. Nor was it because the colony controls it—a simplistic notion that ignores the reality that both the colony and the U.S. involve multiple parties with diverse and conflicting interests; the dynamics among all these parties form a delicate web of influence and interdependence.

In fact, in November 2025, the U.S. administration announced a historic shift in its foreign policy. In its National Security Strategy document, it declared that China poses the most significant threat to the United States and that 35 years of U.S. policies aimed at containing it have failed. It stipulated that the United States’ priority now is to confront China economically and militarily by increasing domestic production, asserting hegemony over the American continent, and de-emphasizing less critical theaters.

The United States has identified what it calls the “Middle East” as one of the regions where it seeks what it termed “final stability,” which would enable it to redirect its resources toward confronting China. It considered Iran and its allies to be the destabilizing factor. It set forth four objectives: to make Iran a subjugated state that poses no military or nuclear threat, does not support armed groups in the region, is incapable of closing the Strait of Hormuz, and normalizes relations with Israel. The United States then sought to impose these conditions on Iran, but Iran did not yield, and so the war ensued, leading up to the agreement that is now finalized.

READ: Trump says US will have to give Iran’s money back

What has the aggression achieved?

Under the agreement, the United States commits to lifting all forms of sanctions and unfreezing the stolen funds. It pledges to develop a plan, in cooperation with its regional partners, under which Iran will receive $300 billion.

It also pledges to withdraw its forces in “proximity” to the Islamic Republic of Iran, without defining that proximity. It recognizes Iran’s right to determine the future form of maritime administration and services in the Strait of Hormuz, provided that this is done through dialogue with Oman and in consultation with the other Gulf regimes, and within the framework of “international law”, which allows Iran to impose fees in exchange for “services.”

Most importantly, however, the agreement makes no mention of Iran’s military capabilities, its support for other organizations, or its normalization with the entity. It includes an affirmation that Iran will not acquire a nuclear bomb and that the Strait of Hormuz will remain open. But these two points are nothing new, and strikingly, the agreement does not mention any new guarantees to enforce them. Therefore, it appears that we are witnessing a shift in the balance of power that clearly favors Iran.

What does this mean for Palestine and the region?

What happened holds a number of lessons for the region. First, Iran showed that it is possible to stand fast against a much larger power by attacking its weak points—in this case, posing a threat to the legitimacy of the U.S. allies in the Gulf, rattling the economies of U.S. allies in Europe and Asia, and even threatening to sink the petrodollar model that is crucial to the U.S. On the other hand, the U.S. attempted to leverage popular discontent and to weaponize identities in Iran—a model that colonial powers have been using for centuries to fragment societies they target. This shows the danger of adopting an identitarian legitimacy and the need for true democracies as part of the struggle against imperialism.

READ: Hezbollah chief: Resistance thwarted ‘Greater Israel’ project, disarmament will not pass

Second, the fact that Lebanon was included in the deal but Palestine was not shows the limitation of relying on an external power that might be unable and/or unwilling to offer support. Obviously, this does not mean the resistance in these countries should break its ties with Iran. But it does mean it should be aware that Iran is a sovereign state that will function according to its own capacities and interests, not according to others’. Accordingly, it should strive to build its own capacities in confronting the colony. This includes local weapons production, policies for societal cohesion (particularly in the face of sectarian fragmentation) and a strong economy.

Third, the fact that the U.S. agreed to a deal that was detrimental to the colony reveals one of Zionism’s core contradictions.

Zionism justifies the need for a Jewish state on the basis that the safety of Jews must not depend on non-Jewish states. However, by implanting in Palestine a settler-colony that can only be sustained with ongoing force, even after 80 years, it has made the safety of the very people it claims to protect contingent on foreign support.

Although the safety of Jews is not Palestinians’ priority, they have an interest in pointing out this fatal contradiction in a well thought-of discourse targeting the settlers in their land. Should such a narrative bring to the fore the resistance leaders’ vision for liberation —a single state for all its citizens— it would present Jews in Palestine with safe alternative Zionism claims they do not have: To either leave Palestine in peace or drop their privileges and remain as safe and equal citizens.

The colony and the U.S. have not managed to impose their agendas, but they have not given up. It is time for Palestine and those in solidarity to move from reaction to the genocide to thought-of action on the basis of their own political vision.

OPINION: After the war on Iran, the Transatlantic alliance rift grows wider

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.