The emerging US-Iran agreement has been presented as a major diplomatic breakthrough, with the centerpiece being a 60-day ceasefire designed to halt one of the most dangerous escalations in West Asia in recent years. But according to CRF’s Senior Research Consultant Colonel Rajeev Agarwal (Retd.), the celebrations may be premature.
“The first thing is that we don’t know the details of the agreement,” he tells StratNews Global on the program The Gist, noting that public announcements have revealed only broad outlines while leaving critical questions unanswered. These include how the agreement will be implemented, who will verify compliance, and what happens after the initial ceasefire period ends.
More importantly, key stakeholders appear unconvinced. Israel has expressed concerns about the deal’s direction, while Hezbollah’s position remains uncertain. As Col Agarwal notes, this remains “a very fragile and delicate” arrangement whose long-term success is far from guaranteed.
Israel’s Objectives and the Questions That Remain
Has Israel achieved the objectives it set out at the beginning of the conflict?
Israel’s goals included degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities, limiting its ballistic missile program, and weakening Tehran’s regional influence. However, critics argue that the emerging agreement does not clearly deliver on those objectives.
“The missile issue has not been addressed,” Col. Agarwal observes. Similarly, questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program appear to have been deferred to future negotiations rather than resolved immediately.
This has fuelled criticism within Israel, where many political leaders believe the war’s strategic gains may not match its costs. The fact that Iran’s political leadership remains intact has only intensified those concerns.
Iran Emerged Stronger Despite the Damage
At first glance, Iran appears to have suffered heavily. The country has endured military strikes, economic disruption and significant infrastructure damage.
In Col. Agarwal’s view, Tehran may still view the outcome as a strategic success.
“The regime survives. The leadership survives,” he says. Despite the damage, Iran remains politically intact and is now discussing issues such as sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and reconstruction assistance.
From Tehran’s perspective, survival itself may constitute victory. The Iranian leadership can claim that it withstood pressure from both Israel and the United States while preserving the core structures of the state.
That narrative could strengthen the regime domestically and improve its bargaining position internationally.
The Strait of Hormuz and the New Geopolitical Reality
Perhaps the most interesting outcome of this deal concerns the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of the world’s oil trade passes. Iran is exploring mechanisms that would allow it to charge fees linked to navigation services and maritime safety. While these proposals remain controversial, they highlight a broader reality: control of strategic chokepoints can generate both geopolitical leverage and economic benefits.
For decades, Iran threatened to disrupt traffic through the strait. During this crisis, Iran discovered the extent of the leverage it exerted through that chokepoint.
Col. Agarwal describes the development in striking terms, arguing that Iran has effectively turned the Strait of Hormuz into “a lottery which can be monetised.”
The implication is significant. If Iran can leverage its geographic position to extract economic or political concessions, it gains a powerful tool that extends beyond military capabilities.
The broader concern is that such a precedent could encourage similar claims over other strategic waterways around the world, potentially reshaping global maritime politics.
What Does It Mean for India?
For India, the immediate priority is stability.
The conflict has threatened energy supplies, disrupted shipping routes and created uncertainty for millions of Indians living and working across the Gulf region.
A durable ceasefire would reduce risks to India’s energy security and trade flows. However, the crisis also reinforces the importance of maintaining balanced relationships across competing regional powers. India’s challenge will be to protect its economic interests while continuing to engage with all sides in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment. It also means a hard look and a recalibration of some relationships that have been labelled ‘strategic’ but will need careful re-examination.
The Bottom Line: Peace or Just a Pause?
So can this agreement be taken as a final settlement? Far from it. While the ceasefire creates an opportunity for diplomacy, many of the underlying disputes remain unresolved. Questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, missile capabilities, regional influence and Israel’s security concerns have not disappeared.
As Colonel Agarwal repeatedly emphasises, the agreement is best viewed as a starting point rather than an endpoint. Whether it evolves into lasting peace will depend on what happens during the next phase of negotiations and whether all the major players are willing to accept the compromises required to make the deal stick.
For now, the agreement offers hope. But it also leaves behind a long list of unanswered questions and uncertainty.
