REUTERS, Washington

With a framework agreement for peace with Iran, US President Donald Trump may have found a way to exit an unpopular war while easing global energy prices. Yet the deal falls short of many of his original goals, exposing him to criticism from party hawks and leaving the US strategically weaker than before the conflict.

Three months after launching attacks on Iran, Trump approved a “memorandum of understanding” marking the most significant breakthrough in talks. Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, potentially lowering US gasoline prices. The Pakistani‑mediated deal, however, requires US concessions, including deferring talks on Iran’s nuclear program — Trump’s stated war objective.

Pressure to end the war has mounted as casualties rise, economic costs grow, and Trump’s approval ratings drop ahead of midterm elections. The deal faces resistance from Washington hawks who warn of excessive concessions. Trump hailed the accord on social media, while Iran confirmed it, though both sides offered conflicting interpretations. The framework extends the ceasefire for 60 days to allow detailed negotiations.

Analysts warn the US may appear weakened, while Iran, though battered, retains leverage by controlling vital energy supplies. Despite heavy strikes, Iran’s government remains intact and more hardline, with its missile program and regional proxies still active. The MOU also leaves unresolved the fate of Iran’s uranium stockpile, with vague commitments to dilute or destroy it.

Critics argue diplomacy could have achieved similar results without war. The deal’s durability compared to the 2015 Obama accord remains uncertain. US officials insist sanctions relief will be gradual, while Iran expects upfront concessions, raising fears Trump may face accusations of funding Iran’s ambitions.

The war has killed thousands, drained US resources, and strained alliances. Israel, Trump’s wartime partner, refuses to join the MOU, while Gulf allies remain wary of Iran’s arsenal. Though Trump touts Iran’s pledge never to build a nuclear weapon, Tehran had long maintained such a stance under religious decree.

Ultimately, the preliminary deal may avert further conflict but leaves unresolved issues, persistent threats, and questions about whether the US gained more than it lost.

Several Republicans took to social media to hail Trump as the “deal-maker in chief”. Congressman Robert Aderholt echoed Trump’s claims that a pending deal with Iran would place more limits on Tehran’s nuclear programme than the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

That deal, from which Trump withdrew in 2018, was reached under the administration of US President Barack Obama. It saw Tehran curtail its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief. Tehran has for years maintained that it does not seek a nuclear weapon.

“Unlike the agreement reached under the Obama administration, this deal will not allow Iran to continue enriching uranium and build up the components necessary to build a nuclear weapon,” Aderholt said.

US Vice President JD Vance pointed to falling oil prices in the immediate aftermath of the announcement as he touted what a “new era” for the Middle East.