In Iran, the emerging memorandum of understanding with the United States is being viewed not merely as an agreement to end the war, but as a historic turning point that could reshape the balance of power across the Middle East, according to senior security officials monitoring the mood within the Iranian leadership.
From Tehran’s perspective, the very transition from a strategy of prolonged military confrontation to one based on gradual negotiations constitutes a significant strategic achievement, particularly after months of military, economic, and diplomatic pressure exerted by the United States and Israel.
According to reports in the Iranian media, Tehran insisted on a phased agreement rather than a “comprehensive deal,” and Washington ultimately had to accept the “step-by-step” approach.
In Iran, this is being presented as proof that the United States retreated from its initial demands.
The Iranian approach is based on the assessment that Washington was forced to abandon the position it adopted at the beginning of the war, when it sought to impose a rapid and comprehensive agreement on Iran under heavy military pressure.
According to the Iranian interpretation, Washington realized that it had failed to achieve its primary objectives through force, foremost among them the immediate dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, weakening the Ayatollah regime, and undermining Iran’s regional standing.
For this reason, security officials say, Tehran views the memorandum of understanding as an important tactical achievement resulting from the strategy of deliberate delay and endurance adopted by the Iranian leadership during the negotiations.
Instead of being dragged into a comprehensive agreement under pressure, the Iranian leadership succeeded in imposing a phased model based on sequential steps: first a ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the lifting of the naval blockade, and the release of frozen Iranian assets, followed only afterward by more complex discussions regarding the nuclear program and the sanctions imposed on Iran.
From Iran’s standpoint, the mere fact that the United States accepted this framework amounts to practical recognition that Tehran succeeded in preserving most of its strategic leverage even after the war.
According to senior security officials, Iranian leaders emphasize that the Islamic Republic did not surrender, did not abandon its principles, and did not agree in advance to the complete dismantlement of its nuclear program or to relinquishing its strategic capabilities.
Iranian media outlets and commentators close to the regime are also portraying the current development as a political blow to Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
According to this narrative, Israel sought to drag the United States into a broader confrontation that would ultimately bring about a fundamental transformation of the Iranian regime and weaken the “Axis of Resistance.”
In practice, however, Washington was forced to choose the path of compromise and accommodation.
According to the Iranian analysis, the emerging agreement does not signify an era of total Iranian domination in the region, but rather the creation of a new balance of power in which Iran becomes a legitimate and central actor in shaping the regional order.
Officials in Tehran believe that once some of the pressure and sanctions are lifted, Iran will be able to expand its economic and strategic ties with Gulf states, strengthen its position in the global energy market, and increase its regional influence.
At the same time, Iranian leaders fully understand that the agreement remains fragile. There is genuine concern in Tehran that Israel will continue pressuring the American administration to harden its position or even resume military confrontation in the future.
Criticism is also mounting within the United States from Republican figures such as Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, who view the memorandum as a dangerous concession to Tehran.
In Iran, however, such criticism is presented as further proof that Tehran succeeded in preventing unconditional capitulation.
As a result, the Iranian leadership continues to project a dual message: on the one hand, openness to an agreement and negotiations, and 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 marks only the beginning of a new phase in the struggle over shaping the regional order, not its conclusion.
This dual approach was reflected, for example, in remarks made on May 24 by General Ali Abdollahi, commander of the “Khatem al-Anbiya” Headquarters, who underscored the Iranian military establishment’s awareness of the fragility of the current situation and its deep mistrust of Washington.
Speaking to Iranian media, he stated: “We are in wartime conditions, and all armed forces remain on maximum alert against any enemy and at every level.”
