In Iran, the emerging memorandum of understanding with the United States is not just seen as an end to the war, but also as a pivotal moment poised to shift the Middle East power balance, a perspective emphasized by senior security officials who observe Iranian leadership.
From Tehran’s perspective, shifting from prolonged military confrontation to gradual negotiations is a major strategic gain, especially after sustained military, economic, and diplomatic pressure from the United States and Israel.
According to Iranian media, Tehran insisted on a phased rather than comprehensive agreement, and Washington ultimately accepted the step-by-step approach.
Tehran presents this as evidence of the United States retreating from its initial demands, highlighting the shift in Washington’s stance.
The approach is based on the view that Washington abandoned its early push for a rapid, comprehensive deal imposed under military pressure.
Tehran interprets this as proof that force failed to achieve U.S. aims, such as the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, weakening the regime, or reducing its regional standing.
Security officials say Tehran views the memorandum as a tactical win from their strategy of delay and endurance during talks.
Instead of being dragged into a comprehensive agreement under pressure, the Iranian leadership succeeded in imposing a phased model based on sequential steps. First came a ceasefire, followed by the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, then the lifting of the naval blockade, and the release of frozen Iranian assets. Only after these steps did more complex discussions regarding the nuclear program and the sanctions imposed on Iran take place.
Iran sees U.S. acceptance of the phased framework as validation of Tehran’s preserved strategic leverage.
Security officials say Iranian leaders stress the Islamic Republic did not surrender, abandon principles, or agree to fully dismantle its nuclear program or strategic capabilities.
Iranian media and regime-aligned commentators portray this as a political setback for Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu.
They claim Israel wanted America to fight for regime change and weaken the “Axis of Resistance.”
In reality, Washington chose compromise and accommodation.
Iranian analysis maintains that the agreement does not mean regional domination by Iran, but instead signifies a new balance of power that legitimizes Iran as a central player shaping the regional order—a central objective for Tehran. It believes that easing some pressure and sanctions will allow Iran to expand ties with Gulf states, strengthen its role in the energy market, and increase its regional influence.
At the same time, Iranian leaders know the agreement is fragile. Tehran is concerned that Israel will pressure the U.S. administration to harden its stance or even restart military confrontation. U.S. criticism grows, too, notably from Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, who call the memorandum a dangerous concession. In Iran, such criticism is presented as more proof that Tehran prevented unconditional capitulation.
As a result, the Iranian leadership continues to project a dual message: on the one hand, openness to an agreement and negotiations; on the other, a high level of military readiness, coupled with repeated assertions that Iran does not trust the United States.
From Tehran’s perspective, the memorandum of understanding signifies the start of a new phase in determining the regional order, reflecting Iran’s belief in its growing influence and strategic leverage.
General Ali Abdollahi, commander of “Khatem al-Anbiya,” recently highlighted both the military’s awareness of the agreement’s fragility and its distrust of Washington.
He told Iranian media: “We are in wartime conditions; all armed forces remain on maximum alert at all levels.”
