Hormuz reopened, assets unfrozen, sanctions eased: Iran took the hits, but did it also get the deal it wanted?

When the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran on February 28, the expectation in many Western capitals was straightforward. The combined military and economic pressure would weaken Tehran, damage its nuclear programme and force it into accepting terms it had long resisted.

More than three months later, the US and Iran agreed upon a peace agreement to end the war. While Iran has undoubtedly suffered military and economic damage, the contours of the deal have raised an uncomfortable question for critics of Tehran: if the goal was to force Iran into major concessions, why does the agreement appear to give it several of the things it wanted before the war began?

The answer lies not only in what happened on the battlefield, but also in what emerged at the negotiating table.

From isolation to negotiations

Iran entered the conflict facing intense pressure.

Its nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow sustained damage. Several senior military commanders were killed. Sanctions continued to weigh heavily on the economy, while military operations disrupted parts of the country’s strategic infrastructure.

Yet the draft memorandum of understanding announced on Monday appears to move Iran from a position of isolation back into direct negotiations with Washington.

According to reports in international media, the proposed agreement would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, end the US naval blockade of Iranian ports, provide sanctions relief and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets. It would also establish a 60-day negotiating framework to address unresolved nuclear issues.

Instead of demanding immediate surrender of key Iranian positions, the agreement appears to postpone many of the most contentious disputes for future talks.

The issues that were not settled

One of the most striking aspects of the proposed agreement is what it does not resolve.

When military operations began, US and Israeli officials argued that Iran’s nuclear ambitions and missile capabilities represented a major threat requiring urgent action.

Yet the current framework appears to leave several of those questions unanswered.

According to an analysis by The Week, issues including Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, the future of its nuclear infrastructure, verification arrangements, its ballistic missile programme and its support for regional groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis have all been deferred to future negotiations.

In practical terms, the proposed agreement creates a pause rather than a final settlement.

For critics of the deal, that raises questions about whether the original objectives of the military campaign were achieved.

How Hormuz became Tehran’s strongest card

Military power was not the only factor shaping the outcome. One of Iran’s most significant sources of leverage throughout the conflict was its ability to threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Before the war, roughly one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies passed through the narrow waterway. The disruption of maritime traffic quickly became a global concern, affecting energy markets and major importing countries, including India.

As the conflict dragged on, restoring normal shipping through Hormuz became a priority not only for Washington but also for governments concerned about global energy stability.

The reopening of the strait eventually became one of the central pillars of the proposed agreement.

While US strikes damaged key facilities, Iran retained enough capability to keep pressure on international shipping routes. That leverage helped ensure that any diplomatic settlement would involve broader discussions about sanctions and economic relief rather than solely military demands.

A deal that has triggered debate in Israel

The proposed framework has generated significant discussion in Israel, where many commentators and former security officials have questioned whether the agreement delivers the outcomes that were originally sought.

Their concern centres on the perception that Iran’s nuclear programme remains largely intact while Tehran gains economic and diplomatic benefits through sanctions relief and renewed negotiations.

Reports also suggest frustration among some Israeli political circles over differing priorities between Washington and Jerusalem.

While the Trump administration increasingly focused on ending the conflict and stabilising energy markets, some Israeli voices argued for maintaining pressure until more far-reaching concessions were secured.

That divergence has become one of the most closely watched aspects of the agreement.

Trump and the shadow of Obama’s Iran deal

The emerging agreement has also reopened a long-running debate in American politics.

Throughout his political career, Trump sharply criticised the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated under former President Barack Obama. He argued that the deal provided Iran with economic benefits without permanently preventing it from advancing its nuclear capabilities.

The United States later withdrew from that agreement in 2018.

Now some lawmakers are asking whether the new framework differs substantially from the arrangement Trump once condemned.

Senator Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, questioned the comparison while speaking to CBS.

“For all his critique of (the Obama deal), we had international observers, we actually had an alliance there that included the Europeans, and Russia and China were all signatories,” Warner said. “Now it is America going alone or going with Israel only, and that does not make us safer.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham also expressed caution about the proposed arrangement.

“I am somewhat concerned that Iran’s view of the agreement seems different than what the American negotiating team is claiming,” Graham said on social media.

Graham also argued that Congress should have an opportunity to review and vote on any future nuclear agreement with Iran and said he expects Vice President JD Vance, whom he described as “the architect of the deal”, to present it.

Why the outcome looks different from the expectations

The military balance of the conflict is not in dispute. Iran suffered substantial losses in personnel, infrastructure and economic resources.

The political outcome, however, appears more complicated.

The proposed agreement would give Tehran a path toward sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and renewed negotiations while leaving several critical disputes unresolved.

For a country that entered the conflict facing coordinated pressure from both the United States and Israel, that represents a significantly different outcome from the one many observers anticipated in February.

Whether Iran can convert that position into a longer-term strategic advantage will depend on the next 60 days of negotiations.

For now, the agreement has fuelled a debate that seemed unlikely when the conflict began: despite suffering considerable damage, Iran may have emerged from the war with more negotiating leverage than many expected.