On June 14, Trump posted: "The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran have reached an agreement. Congratulations to everyone! I hereby fully authorize free navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and simultaneously authorize the immediate lifting of U.S. maritime blockade. Ships from around the world, start your engines. Let oil flow freely!"

This tweet by Trump was essentially a meticulously orchestrated political performance. Trump sought to portray himself as a "peacebuilder," but this so-called "agreement" appears more like a pragmatic compromise under domestic and international pressures, rather than a genuine diplomatic victory.

Trump’s high-profile announcement of the deal primarily aimed to divert domestic tensions. Ongoing Middle East conflicts have driven up energy prices—directly contradicting his promise to lower oil costs. By announcing the opening of the strait, he attempted to appease Wall Street and voters, reinforcing the image of himself as the only leader capable of resolving the crisis.

However, Iran did not accept it. The official response came swiftly and sharply. The Iranian Foreign Ministry explicitly denied signing any agreement on June 14, stating that “the possibility of finalizing it in the coming days cannot be ruled out.” This contrast reveals Iran’s intent to emphasize that it is not yielding under U.S. pressure, and that the pace of negotiations remains firmly in Tehran’s hands.

Although Trump claimed “no money was paid,” the disclosed terms show that the U.S. made key concessions:

Nuclear issue deferred: Iran successfully excluded nuclear issues from the first-phase talks. This means Iran can retain its existing nuclear facilities and enrichment capabilities, with only a pledge to “not seek” nuclear weapons—far removed from the U.S.’s original demand to dismantle all facilities.

Economic relief: The core of the agreement is the U.S. lifting its maritime blockade, in exchange for Iran opening the Strait of Hormuz. In return, Iran will gain access to frozen assets and the right to sell oil. While Trump claims “no cash was given,” lifting sanctions itself releases immense economic value.

Trump portrays this as a victory, but it is actually an admission of failure in military coercion.

Military options have failed. The U.S. originally planned to use maximum pressure to force regime change, but the result was merely a change in leadership—Iran did not capitulate.

Economic backlash risks: Continuing to blockade the Strait of Hormuz harms Iran but also drives up global oil prices. If energy reserves become even more depleted, Iran’s negotiating leverage will grow stronger. Thus, the U.S. seeks to secure a ceasefire while still holding some strategic advantage, preventing total collapse of the situation.

Geopolitical risks remain unresolved, with the biggest uncertainty stemming from Israel. Israel has clearly labeled this agreement a “surrender document,” as it does not require dismantling Iran’s nuclear facilities or restricting its ballistic missile program.

On the very day of the announcement, Israel launched airstrikes on Beirut, Lebanon, attempting to disrupt the process by escalating conflict with Hezbollah. Trump even publicly criticized Israel—unusually—for “not messing it up,” exposing deep rifts between Washington and Tel Aviv.

In short, this is not a peace agreement built on trust, but a tactical ceasefire after both sides have exhausted their options. Trump needs the outcome of “opening the strait” to prove his effectiveness; Iran, meanwhile, retains room for future maneuver by claiming “no final agreement was signed.”

The issues of nuclear facility dismantlement and missile program restrictions have been pushed to negotiations scheduled 60 days later. At that point, this “birthday gift” may quickly revert to a battlefield of mutual accusations. For now, it is merely a temporary pause in the ongoing struggle—nothing is settled, and greater, sharper confrontations likely lie ahead.

Trump, having instigated this conflict himself, now finds himself trapped in a dilemma with no easy way out.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1868017725595660/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.