According to Iraf, Dr. Karim Pakzad, researcher at the French Institute for Strategic Studies, stated: “Despite the immense military superiority of the United States and Israel, political and strategic victory belongs to Iran.”
He added that the outcome of such a process could be Iran’s return to the position it held in the region during the 1970s, once again turning Iran into a major regional power.
Pakzad stated that this shift in the Islamic Republic’s policy may, on the surface, appear to be a kind of defeat, but he stressed that this memorandum was reached following a devastating war between Iran on one side and the United States and Israel on the other.
The researcher added that, on the military front, Iran relied on the development and expansion of various long-range missile systems, and on the other hand used the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic instrument of pressure.
He said some have described the Strait of Hormuz as “Iran’s atomic bomb,” adding that this instrument plunged the global economy — particularly the economies of industrialized nations — into crisis within a short period.
Pakzad also identified the strikes on American military bases in the Arab countries bordering the Persian Gulf as another of Iran’s winning cards, stating that these attacks “exposed America’s inability to defend these countries.”
He added that the consequences of this policy would soon become apparent, and that countries in the region might reconsider their dependence on the United States. According to him, “Qatar, Oman, and Saudi Arabia were, even during the course of the war, not falling in line behind the United States.”
Pakzad went on to describe the United States and Israel as the principal losers of this war, saying Washington had previously, in Afghanistan and Iraq as well, failed to achieve its strategic objectives despite possessing vast military power.
He added that the United States had ignored the historical lesson that “in a war, from a strategic standpoint, victory cannot be achieved through reliance on military power alone.”
The researcher stated that America’s failure to swiftly achieve its objective of “regime change in Iran,” American public opposition to the war, the approaching congressional midterm elections, the risk of Republicans losing their majority, and the war’s economic consequences were among the factors that influenced Washington’s shift in approach.
He added that rising gasoline prices and intensifying inflation also compelled Donald Trump to “concede to nearly all of Iran’s demands.”
Pakzad said: “If America did not get on the negotiating table what it failed to win on the battlefield, Iran got on the negotiating table what it did not win on the battlefield.” He added: “I would even say, all of its demands.”
The researcher, in another part of his commentary, stated that the Islamic Republic’s most important achievement lies elsewhere. He said: “The U.S.-Iran memorandum is a major blow to Israel, its isolation at the international level, and Netanyahu’s political suicide.”
Pakzad, referring to domestic reactions within Israel, added that the leader of the opposition in the country’s parliament has said: “Opposing the U.S.-Iran memorandum means, for Israel, opposing its greatest ally — and this is painful for Israel. Not opposing it means accepting Iran’s victory — and that, too, is painful.”
He also said that from the start of the war there was no complete agreement between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu regarding the ultimate objectives of the conflict.
According to him, Trump sought, through extensive bombing campaigns, to weaken the Islamic Republic and lay the groundwork for the formation of a government willing to come to terms with the United States — a model he described as similar to Venezuela.
Pakzad added that, by contrast, Netanyahu sought the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, the rise to power of Reza Pahlavi, and the transformation of Iran into a dependent state similar to the United Arab Emirates.
He stated that comparing the provisions of the memorandum with Netanyahu’s intended plans and objectives shows that this agreement could carry “major aftershocks in the region.”
He also referred to claims raised regarding Iran’s nuclear program, saying Trump is attempting to convince American public opinion that, under this memorandum, Iran has committed to “never gaining access to nuclear weapons,” and that the American military strike was carried out with this very objective.
Pakzad rejected this argument, adding: “What difficulty would there have been for Iran in committing that its nuclear program would not be aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons?”
He continued: “Hadn’t it already repeated this hundreds of times? Hadn’t the previous leader of the Islamic Republic issued a religious ruling declaring the possession of nuclear weapons forbidden?”
