ABU DHABI (ALETIHAD)
A recent study published by TRENDS Research & Advisory concluded that the United States-Iran agreement signed on June 17, 2026, during the G7 Summit in France, has revealed a profound strategic paradox.
While the agreement grants Iran immediate economic and political gains, represented by the end of the war, the lifting of the blockade, the easing of sanctions, and the release of part of its frozen assets, it simultaneously places Tehran before a long-term strategic cost that may outweigh the gains of the moment.
The study – "Beyond Gains: The US-Iran Agreement and the Redefinition of the Regime Without Its Immediate Collapse" – argues that the real value of the agreement is not measured only by what Tehran obtains immediately, but also by what it may gradually lose of the instruments of power it has accumulated over decades.
The study, prepared in English by the TRENDS Virtual Office in France, explains that the agreement carries profound symbolic significance that extends beyond being merely an understanding to end the war that broke out in February between the United States and Israel on one side and Iran on the other.
The choice of Versailles as the venue and the timing of the signing during the G7 Summit give the agreement a dimension that goes beyond a bilateral relationship, placing it within the broader attempt to rearrange regional and international balances under the umbrella of the major powers.
Restricting the Nuclear Programme
The study argues that if the agreement leads to the restriction of Iran's nuclear programme, subjects it to stricter oversight, neutralises the Strait of Hormuz as a geopolitical deterrence card, or ties the Iranian economy to external mechanisms of financing and reconstruction, then exiting the war will become an entry point for recalibrating Iranian power from the outside.
It further notes that obliging regional fronts to de-escalate may weaken Iran's image among its allies and reinforce the perception that it employs them according to the logic of "Iranian interests first", rather than within a genuine unity of destiny.
The study finds that Iran may succeed in exiting the war, but it may lose what remains of the very foundations of resilience that originally enabled it to negotiate. Therefore, determining who emerged victorious from the war becomes more complex.
The victor is not necessarily the party that secured immediate gains, but rather the one that managed to impose on the other party a redefinition of its power, a narrowing of its margin of decision-making, and the transformation of its instruments of influence into matters subject to negotiation, oversight, and settlement.
Strategic Concessions
The study concludes by emphasising that the agreement transforms Tehran from a party resisting pressure into a party formally seeking survival through a Washington-sponsored understanding, thereby striking the core of the Iranian narrative built on independence and the rejection of hegemony.
It also links the major gains to the 60-day negotiations, meaning that Iran has entered a new phase of pressure to make strategic concessions.
The study explains that although the agreement does not explicitly call for dismantling Iran's nuclear programme, it gradually opens the door to such an outcome by placing the core of Iran's nuclear capability under direct supervision and making the right to uranium enrichment a subject of negotiation.
Furthermore, the agreement does not protect Iran from future reactivation of pressure if the rounds of negotiations over the final agreement falter.