US President Donald Trump will undoubtedly find more words of praise for himself this week. On June 19, a memorandum on the terms for ending the war with Iran, which began on February 28, is to be signed in Switzerland. This is a memorandum, meaning a preliminary agreement. All the most contentious issues – from the fate of uranium enriched almost to weapons-grade to the prospects of unfreezing Iranian assets – have been postponed. The only real consequence of the memorandum might be the complete unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world's oil supplies pass. But this can hardly be called a breakthrough achievement, as no one was blocking the strait before the start of the American-Israeli operation. The material from "Novaya Gazeta Europe" discusses why Donald Trump started attacks on Iran and what their ultimate outcome was. US Vice President JD Vance and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio listen to US President Donald Trump's speech to the media in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., USA, on April 23, 2026. Photo: Will Oliver / EPA. Signed and will be signed again. In the coming days, the Trump administration will publish the full text of the agreement with Iran. This was promised by US Vice President JD Vance, speaking on ABC News on June 15. He made a paradoxical statement. On the one hand, Vance noted, some "technical issues" within the framework of the agreement are still being discussed. On the other hand, the document has already been signed, as it turned out. This happened electronically on June 14. According to Axios portal journalist Barak Ravid, JD Vance and Donald Trump signed from the American side, and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who acted as the chief negotiator for Tehran, signed from the Iranian side. A formal signing ceremony will take place in Geneva on Friday, June 19. The text of the memorandum has not yet been officially published, so for now, we can rely only on various statements from the involved parties and the version of the document disseminated by the Iranian agency Mehr on the night of June 15. According to information from Iran, the memorandum implies: immediate and permanent cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon; a commitment by the US not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs and to respect its sovereignty; complete lifting of the naval blockade within 30 days; withdrawal of US troops from regions close to Iran; opening of the Strait of Hormuz; suspension of sanctions on Iranian oil sales; provision by the US and its allies of reconstruction plans for Iranian facilities worth $300 billion; 60-day negotiations to reach a final agreement; Iran's commitment not to produce nuclear weapons; a US commitment not to impose new sanctions or increase military presence in the region during negotiations; unblocking of $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets; creation of a control mechanism for the implementation of the agreement; approval of the final agreement by a UN Security Council resolution; unblocking of half of Iran's frozen assets, suspension of oil sanctions, and lifting of the naval blockade as preconditions for starting final negotiations. It is clear from this list that the main negotiation process is still ahead. As Nate Swanson of the Atlantic Council, who was a senior advisor on Iran for several US administrations, notes, the prepared document only "fixes fragile ceasefires in Iran and Lebanon and outlines topics for future negotiations": the memorandum clarifies neither the mechanics of ship passage through the Strait of Hormuz, nor the prospects of the nuclear issue, nor the fate of sanctions against Tehran – all of this is relegated to the "second phase" lasting 60 days. For now, we can state that the situation is far from what Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to see when they began their military operations against Iran at the end of February 2026 (the American operation was named "Epic Fury," the Israeli one – "Roaring Lion"). Iran's Military Capabilities. Announcing the attacks on Iran on February 28, Donald Trump promised to "destroy their missiles and level their missile industry." For the most part, this promise was fulfilled, albeit with reservations. According to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), before the war, Iran had about 2,500 missiles capable of reaching Israeli territory. By April 5, this number, according to the IDF, had decreased to just over 1,000. The dynamics are telling: from 480 missile launches from Iran per day on February 28 to 40 by March 9. Meanwhile, there are other assessments. For example, The New York Times reported on May 12, citing a classified US intelligence assessment, that Iran allegedly "retained approximately 70% of its pre-war missile arsenal." In any case, the most significant damage was inflicted not on stockpiles of ready missiles, but on the infrastructure necessary for their creation. In mid-May, the Pentagon claimed that "more than 85% of Iran's defense industry related to missiles, drones, and the navy" had been damaged or destroyed. Before the war, Israel estimated that Iran was moving to increase its arsenal to about 8-10,000 ballistic missiles within two to three years. This would allow Tehran, if necessary, to overwhelm Israel's missile defense systems through massive salvos. Now, this cannot be spoken of. "The remaining missile forces of Iran can increasingly be used not as a tool of warfare, but as a means of terror and ensuring the survival of the regime. If the Islamic Republic decides to use them in a new round of hostilities or launches a preemptive strike, it will essentially go all-in and create a strategic dilemma of its own initiative," noted experts from the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). In addition, at the beginning of the war, Trump promised to destroy the Iranian Navy. And this was largely achieved. On March 1, the head of the White House announced that the US armed forces had destroyed nine ships ("some of them relatively large and important") and the headquarters of the Iranian Navy. The most notable episode was the attack off the coast of Sri Lanka on March 4, when an American submarine fired torpedoes at the Iranian destroyer IRIS Dena and sank it. At the end of April, the Pentagon reported the destruction of approximately 92% of the Navy's largest ships. However, US intelligence admitted that a large part of the IRGC fleet, including small fast boats, remains combat-capable. And this is precisely what is needed, for example, to block the Strait of Hormuz. Nuclear Program. In the same speech on February 28, Donald Trump promised to "make sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon." Now, as JD Vance stated recently, it can be confidently asserted that Iran will not get it. However, whether this is true is a debatable question. Before the war, US intelligence services did not conclude that Iran had decided to create nuclear weapons. However, the Trump administration interpreted the very fact of Tehran's possession of enriched uranium reserves as evidence of Iran's dangerous desire to retain the capability to create such weapons. According to the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), the previous military conflict – US strikes on Iranian territory in June 2025 – led to the destruction or disabling of all (about 22,000) gas centrifuges at facilities in Fordow and Natanz. "As a result, for the first time in 20 years, Iran has no traceable path to producing weapons-grade uranium at its enrichment facilities. In addition, the strikes caused enormous damage to Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons itself," noted ISIS experts. But in any case, there is another problem: the uranium remaining in the hands of the Iranian regime. 440.9 kg of uranium enriched to 60% (which is "99% of the way to weapons-grade uranium"; enough material for about ten warheads) physically survived and are presumably "walled up" in the tunnels of the US-attacked facilities. US President Donald Trump addresses reporters in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., USA, on April 23, 2026. Photo: Will Oliver / EPA. Under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran was allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67% and keep a stockpile of no more than 300 kg. But in 2018, Trump withdrew from the deal, calling it too lenient, and Iran did not restrain itself afterward. Initially, during the Republican's second term, the US sought Iran's agreement for "zero enrichment." But on June 15, Trump told The New York Times that Iran would be allowed to enrich at low levels, far from weapons-grade. This means the US President has already moved away from his previous maximalist positions. But Tehran might not agree to even this. "Iran knows how to drag out such negotiations and try to get concessions along the way," wrote former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, who also worked on Iran in the Biden administration, on social media X. "It is quite possible that no deal will be reached at all. And it is very likely that if it is reached, it will be worse than what we could have obtained through diplomatic means before the war." According to Shapiro, Iran is unlikely to take the threat of new US military strikes seriously – at least until the November midterm elections. That is, as the expert notes, the US will not have the tool of a credible threat of force, and this will clearly play into Iran's hands. It will resist significant concessions, and ultimately the resolution of the issue may take months or even years. At the same time, experts agree that the US and Israel have destroyed Iran's infrastructure, but have only strengthened Tehran's desire to have nuclear weapons. According to Victoria Taylor of the Atlantic Council (formerly Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran), the war may have further convinced the Iranian regime that "nuclear deterrence is the best way to ensure its future." Iranians walk past a mural depicting the Iranian national flag with a missile outline, Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2026. Photo: Abedin Taherkenareh / EPA. Strait of Hormuz and Oil. In addition, thanks to the military campaign of Trump and Netanyahu, Iran realized what a powerful lever of pressure it possesses. We are talking about the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the world's oil supplies pass. Shortly after the war began, Tehran de facto blocked the strait, through which up to 60 tankers passed daily under normal conditions. Then the American blockade was added: the US began intercepting ships of all countries entering and leaving Iranian ports and coastal areas. In early June, for example, the strait was completely blocked – over 340 ships were waiting to pass through it. "There are also many gaps in the story of the Strait of Hormuz, as in the case of the nuclear issue, because versions of what will happen next differ," notes orientalist Marianna Belenkaya, author of the Telegram channel "Falafelnaya," in a conversation with "Nova-Europe," specifically pointing to the issue of payment for passage of ships through the strait. Trump insists that shipping will remain "permanently free." He informed The New York Times of this. Simultaneously, the head of the White House confirmed that the US naval blockade of Iranian ports would be lifted. Meanwhile, the Iranian agency Fars, citing a source, reported that the final version of the memorandum states that "future management of services for navigation in the Strait of Hormuz will be determined by Iran and Oman." This wording, according to the source, means that "the US recognizes Iran's right to charge fees." According to the agency's interlocutor, Iran will allow free passage of ships only for 60 days, after which the Iranian side will "receive financial benefits for the country's economic development." In addition, as Marianna Belenkaya recalls, "the strait will not be opened in one day – it needs to be demined, and the infrastructure needs to be put in order." Finding and neutralizing Iranian mines laid during the conflict is a difficult task. The Pentagon had previously warned that the process could take up to six months. President Trump, however, assured on June 15 that the Strait of Hormuz was partially open – and on Friday it "will be fully open." "And what is very important: oil prices are rapidly falling, and the stock market is soaring like a rocket today, to record highs. Oil has seen its biggest drop, we are reaching low figures," added the American president. How events unfold will inevitably affect further price fluctuations. It should be recalled that the war triggered a sharp increase in oil prices. The price of Brent crude rose to nearly $120 a barrel at its peak. On June 15, Brent on the London exchange traded below $84 a barrel for the first time since the start of the war. Russia became one of the main beneficiaries of the military actions: unexpected additional revenues slowed down the growth of the budget deficit. At the same time, according to the head of Swedish military intelligence, Tomas Nilsson, Russia could close its budget deficit if the price of Urals crude oil remained above $100 a barrel for a year (Urals at loading ports are traded at a discount to Brent – approximately minus $15). Meanwhile, energy policy specialist Kirill Rodionov predicts that "Urals prices in the second half of 2026 will be below $60 a barrel." This means Moscow will have to forget about super-profits. Cargo ships stranded in the Strait of Hormuz, off the coast of Bandar Abbas in southern Iran, June 1, 2026. Photo: Amirhossein Khorgooei / EPA. Money and Sanctions. According to Dan Shapiro, the unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz is the most important result of the memorandum. At the same time, the expert notes: "Of course, the strait was open before the war. Now its 'opening' is effectively paid for through sanctions relief [against Iran. – Ed.]." And this is another difficult topic for further discussion. Iran itself, as early as April, estimated the damage from the American-Israeli bombings at $270 billion and demanded reparations. In the version of the memorandum disseminated by the Iranian agency Mehr, it was stated about the unblocking of $24 billion (these are Iranian funds frozen in banks of various countries due to sanctions), as well as – upon reaching a final deal – about a reconstruction program "of at least $300 billion." In addition, according to Mehr, final negotiations will not begin until half of Iran's frozen assets are unblocked, oil sanctions are suspended, and the naval blockade is lifted. This was also confirmed by Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi: according to him, the next stage of negotiations will depend on whether Washington fulfills a number of preliminary conditions, including the unfreezing of Iranian assets abroad. However, the American side categorically rejects such an interpretation. "This is completely untrue. No frozen assets will be unfrozen until the Iranians fulfill their obligations," a senior unnamed official in Washington assured CNN. And JD Vance stated on CBS that the $24 billion figure "is not mentioned in any of the texts" of the agreement. According to him, the issue of assets will be considered later, after the signing of the memorandum of understanding. In an interview with Fox News, he further explained: "The agreement states that they [the Iranians – Ed.] will not receive a single cent of American money. The agreement also states that if the Iranians [are fulfilling the terms of the deal. – Ed.], if sanctions are eased, if the Iranians integrate into the global economy, we will offer other countries – not the US – to invest in their country. But this is only possible if the agreement is observed." "The story that the US is paying Iran 300 million dollars is fake news spread by Democrats!!!" Donald Trump also confirmed. "It is unclear how the US will ease sanctions, who should make the first move," Marianna Belenkaya describes the current situation. "Iran does something, and then the US lifts sanctions, or vice versa... Everything is still in limbo." Anti-American image on a house in Tehran, Iran, May 26, 2026. Photo: Abedin Taherkenareh / EPA. Fate of the Regime. "To the great and proud people of Iran, I say today: your hour of freedom is near... When we are done, take your power into your own hands. It will belong to you," Donald Trump declared on February 28, calling the US and Israeli war against Iran "the only chance [for the Iranians. – Ed.] for generations to come." Trump later repeatedly stated that "freedom for the Iranian people is the main goal" of the American-Israeli attacks. Later, the US President declared that he had accomplished nothing less than a "regime change" in Iran. This is how the head of the White House assessed the consequences of the airstrikes, which killed Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had ruled since 1989, and other leadership figures. As early as the end of March, Israeli military officials noted that during the war, Iran had lost over 250 high-ranking military and civilian officials. Meanwhile, it is obvious that the system has held up. In March, the Iranian Assembly of Experts elected a new supreme leader – the son of the deceased, 56-year-old Mojtaba Khamenei, who has close ties to the all-powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Experts consider him even tougher and more radical than his father was. It is unlikely that Mojtaba Khamenei will drastically soften his stance towards Washington, if only because the US and Israel killed his father, mother, wife, and son. "The Iranian regime is more alive than ever. It has changed, and perhaps not in the way we would like. The role of the IRGC has increased, the regime has become more radical," says Marianna Belenkaya. Iranian authorities are now encouraged by the fact that they survived (meaning, according to them, they won). Meanwhile, Donald Trump, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on June 14, demonstrated his favorite tactic: he stated that in reality, he was "never interested in regime change" in Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu, following this, also assured that Israel had never intended to change the regime in Iran. Iran's Proxy Forces. "We will ensure that terrorist proxy forces in the region can no longer destabilize the situation in the region or the world, or attack our forces," Donald Trump declared on February 28. This referred to Palestinian Hamas, the Yemeni Houthis, and, primarily, Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, which, in solidarity with Iran, began actively attacking Israel. In response, the IDF opened a new front, and not limited to shelling: Israeli troops entered southern Lebanon. They are creating a buffer zone on the Lebanese side of the border and, as Marianna Belenkaya notes, "do not intend to leave the occupied territory anytime soon." As a senior US official told Reuters, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon is not a condition of the agreement, and Israel will have the right to defend itself against further "Hezbollah" attacks. Benjamin Netanyahu also noted that the Israeli military would continue to destroy the group's infrastructure and respond to any strikes against Israel. Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly made it clear that Israel's actions on the Lebanese front are hindering his agreements with Tehran. The Republican president was particularly angered that, a few hours before the electronic signing of the US-Iranian memorandum on Sunday, Israel struck Beirut. "Why the hell did Bibi [Netanyahu's nickname. – Ed.] have to make this damn strike [on Lebanon. – Ed.]? I was so mad. I made that clear to him," Trump told Axios. On June 15, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stated that the agreement between the US and Iran opens the door for broader negotiations on peace and security in the entire region. "Of course, there can be no peace in the Middle East while Lebanon is ablaze," she added. Meanwhile, it is unlikely that the US-Iranian memorandum will help resolve the problem with "Hezbollah." It is indicative that on the evening of June 15 – amid discussions about prospects for reconciliation in the region – Hezbollah announced an attack on Israeli forces attempting to advance in southern Lebanon. "The fighters of the Islamic Resistance, using guided missiles and Ababil attack drones, confronted the enemy forces as they attempted to advance, forcing them to retreat," the statement said. Israeli and Lebanese flags at a monument called "Fence of Goodness" in Metula, near the Israeli-Lebanese border, June 15, 2026. Photo: Atef Safadi / EPA. Conclusion: Disappointment. Despite all this, the authorities of the US, Israel, and Iran have spoken only of how beneficial the upcoming agreement is since Sunday. "Ships of the world, start your engines! Let the oil flow!" proclaimed Donald Trump, announcing the deal (and, consequently, the unblocking of the Strait of Hormuz). He later returned to the theme of how productively he had worked "for the benefit of the region and the whole world." "We have inflicted enormous damage on Iran's economy; some estimate it at one trillion dollars," boasted Benjamin Netanyahu in turn. "We have achieved victory over America," said Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi without restraint. Meanwhile, alternative opinions were not heard from Iran, but lively discussions have unfolded in the US and Israel in recent days. For example, even many Trump supporters in the US, if not criticizing the agreement, expressed cautious skepticism about it. For instance, Senator Lindsey Graham expressed doubts about the terms of the memorandum, stating that he is "somewhat concerned" that the Iranian version of the agreements differs from the American one. "For days now, I've been asking: why can't we, the people, see this damn memorandum? And not through people informed by some anonymous source. If this is truly an outstanding result for the world, then publish the document," radio host Mark Levin, who repeatedly discussed Iran-related issues with Trump during his second presidential term, indignated on social media X. In addition, he reposted with the words "spot on" a message stating that "the real goal of the Islamic regime is to 'survive, recover and rebuild its strength,' and then refuse to comply with any signed agreements." Conservative foreign policy analyst and former State Department official Christian Whiton, who supported the attack on Iran at the time, stated with disappointment that Trump had given in to Tehran and as a result had "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory." In particular, the expert noted, "Trump has slowed down and likely jeopardized one of the most significant achievements of the war – the possible destruction of Hezbollah, which, through its predecessor, "Islamic Jihad," first gained notoriety in the US after the killing of 241 American servicemen in Beirut." According to Whiton, Secretary of State Marco Rubio "engaged with the governments of Israel and Lebanon and moved towards an agreement that could have ousted Hezbollah (and thus Iran) from the Lebanese government for the first time in a long time," but "this historic initiative stalled after Trump made it clear to Israel that he actually wanted to preserve Hezbollah, as Tehran made it a condition of the deal." "A wise man once told me that every presidential administration leaves Washington having become a parody of itself. Is Trump accelerating this process already in the sixth year of his presidency?" Christian Whiton asked. And Russia expert Fiona Hill, who was Deputy Assistant to the US President for National Security during Trump's first term, expressed confidence that the Iranian campaign had undermined the authority of the US as a military power. Hill drew parallels with the Russian-Ukrainian war: "The stalemate in Ukraine undermines Russia's reputation as a global military power. It destroys Putin's aura of invincibility just as the stalemate in the Persian Gulf undermines the positions of the United States and Trump." According to Hill, the root of the problem is that both presidents poorly understood their opponents: they projected their own idea of centralized power onto Iran and Ukraine and believed that if the system could be decapitated, it would collapse. But everything went according to a completely different scenario. A billboard depicting the late Supreme Leaders of Iran Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on a street in Tehran, Iran, June 15, 2026. Photo: Abedin Taherkenareh / EPA. Meanwhile, in Israel, as Marianna Belenkaya told "Nova-Europe," criticism is coming from both the left and the right political flanks. Among others, centrist opposition leader Yair Lapid harshly stated: "We must still hope that the reports about the agreement with Iran are not true, but if they are, then this is one of the most horrific failures of Israel's foreign and security policy, and it is entirely attributed to Netanyahu." In particular, according to Lapid, the prime minister is to blame for "failing to persuade the Americans to bomb Iran's oil and energy facilities." In addition, the opposition leader continued, Netanyahu did not achieve "the inclusion of [Iranian – Ed.] ballistic missiles in the agreement or at least on the negotiating agenda," nor did he "take into account the consequences of [possible in the future. – Ed.] lifting sanctions and injecting tens of billions of dollars into the Iranian economy under the control of the IRGC." "The Roaring Lion [the name of the Israeli military operation against Iran. – Ed.] returned home with its tail between its legs," concluded orientalist Ksenia Svetlova, author of the Telegram channel "Eastern Syndrome" and former Knesset deputy, summing up the war. "This happens when adventurism overcomes sober analysis, and pride possesses minds." According to her, "Israel and the US are learning the limits of power in real-time, but only one of the two partners remains within reach of Iranian missiles and will suffer from deep changes in the Middle East after a poorly prepared, failed war." "Ships of the world, start your engines! Let the oil flow!" wrote Trump, announcing the deal with Iran. Probably, after the memorandum is signed, it will indeed "flow" through the Strait of Hormuz. But it seems that this is the only thing that can be said with any certainty. Everything else – the fate of uranium, the sequence of sanctions relief and money unfreezing, the future of Iranian proxy forces in the region, and much more – has been put aside and will be decided for at least another 60 days. At the same time, it is possible that Trump will completely lose interest in Iran during this time. And, as he has promised many times, he will shift all his attention to Cuba or, say, return to the resolution of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.